{"id":83194,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-13T22:26:12","modified_gmt":"2016-07-13T16:56:12","slug":"asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n<pre>                             1\n\n\n\n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.345 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, \n     Salapuri, Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani,\n     (Through its President,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Pralhad Baburao More,\n     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-At Post-Salapuri,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.               ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n                \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n      \n\n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad,\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad,\n        Parbhani.                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:27 :::\n                              2\n\n                            WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, \n     Salapuri, Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     (Through its President,\n     Pralhad Baburao More,\n     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-At Post-Salapuri,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                    \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n                   \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai,\n      \n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n   \n\n\n\n        Education, Aurangabad,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Parbhani.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n                 \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:27 :::\n                              3\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8324 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Samjvikas Prathisthan,\n     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,\n     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,\n     District-Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Through it's Secretary,\n     Haridas Shantaram Doke,\n     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri &amp; Business,\n     R\/o- At &amp; Post: Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Dist-Ahmednagar.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                    \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                   \n        Through its Secretary,\n        The Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,\n        Dist-Ahmednagar,\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.\n        Mr.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Respondent No.2. \n                          ...\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:27 :::\n                              4\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke\n     Samjvikas Prathisthan,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,\n     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,\n     District-Ahmednagar,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Haridas Shantaram Doke,\n     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri &amp; Business,\n     R\/o- At &amp; Post: Ahmednagar,\n     Dist-Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n                   \n        The Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad,\n   \n\n\n\n        Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:27 :::\n                              5\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.6041 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Ramkrishna Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n     Pangari (Gosavi), Taluka-Mantha,\n     District-Jalna, \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Through its Secretary,\n     Rajendra Babulal Pawar,\n     Age-23 years, Occu:Agri.,\n     R\/o-Pangari(Gosavi),\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Taluka-Mantha, Dist-Jalna.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                  \n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n                 \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna,\n      \n\n        Dist-Jalna,\n   \n\n\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                             WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              6\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.6018 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Marathwada Sarvodaya Seva\n     Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Ambhoda(Kadam), Taluka-Mantha,\n     District-Jalna,\n     Through its President,\n     Vasantrao s\/o Ramrao Chavan,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Age-63 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o- Vivekanand Nagar, Mantha,\n     Taluka-Mantha, Dist-Jalna.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n                \n        Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad,Jalna,\n   \n\n\n\n        Dist-Jalna,\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              7\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.128 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, Kedgaon Devi, Ahmednagar,\n     Through its President,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Prabhakarrao Marutrao Gund.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Principal Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Primary Education Department, \n        Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai-32,\n                 \n     2) The Principal Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya Annex,\n                \n        Mumbai-32.\n\n     3) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune Region,\n      \n\n        Pune.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.N. Lande Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos 1 to 3.\n        Mr.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Respondent No.4. \n                          ...  \n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              8\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva\n     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n     Through it's President,\n     Shri Kedarnath s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. &amp; Social Work,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     R\/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n                \n        Education Department, \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n      \n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n   \n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n\n\n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4.  \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              9\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.366 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n     Through it's President,\n     Shri Kedarnath s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. &amp; Social Work,\n     R\/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                \n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n   \n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4. \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              10\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.374 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n     Through it's President,\n     Shri Kedarnath s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. &amp; Social Work,\n     R\/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n                   \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n      \n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n   \n\n\n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the\n        Respondent No.4.       \n                          ...\n\n                 \n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              11\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.385 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n     Through it's President,\n     Shri Kedarnath s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. &amp; Social Work,\n     R\/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n                \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n      \n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n   \n\n\n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the\n        Respondent No.4.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              12\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.405 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n     Through it's President,\n     Shri Kedarnath s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. &amp; Social Work,\n     R\/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n                \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n      \n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n   \n\n\n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the\n        Respondent No.4.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              13\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, \n     Salapuri, Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani,\n     (Through its President,\n     Pralhad Baburao More,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-At Post-Salapuri,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n                \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n      \n\n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad,\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              14\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     The Pandhare Educational and\n     Research Trust,\n     Near Doodh Dairy Corner,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Vasarni, Nanded-431 603,\n     Through its Secretary.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n                   \n        School Education \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n\n     2) The Deputy Director \n   \n\n\n\n        of Education,\n        Latur Division,\n        Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.P.G. Rodge Advocate for  the\n\n\n\n\n\n        Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader\n        for the Respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              15\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.666 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Omshanti Bahu-Uddeshiya\n     Shikshan Sanstha at\n     Shivankhed (Bk), Tq-Chakur,\n     District-Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Through its Secretary\n     Shri Somnath s\/o Sangappa Navbhade,\n     Age-36 years, R\/o-Shivankhed,\n     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                    \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                   \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Development \n        Department, Maharashtra State,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n      \n\n\n     2) The Director of Education (Primary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     \n        Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              16\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Yeshwant Shikshan Sanstha \n     at Bhadgaon, Tq-Chakur,\n     District-Latur,\n     Through its Secretary\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Shri Balasaheb s\/o Ambadas Garad,\n     Age-40 years, R\/o-Bhadgaon,\n     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Development \n                   \n        Department, Maharashtra State,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n      \n\n     2) The Director of Education (Primary),\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     \n        Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              17\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.806 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Rajendra s\/o Nivrutirao Deshmukh,\n     Age-39 years, Occu: Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Shri Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded,\n     R\/o-Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                 \n     2) The Principal Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,   \n                \n     3) The Director Education,\n        Directorate of Secondary and\n        Higher Secondary Education,  \n      \n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n        Education, Latur Division, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Nanded Zilla Parishad,\n        Dist-Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              18\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.812 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Dr. Rajeshwar s\/o Hariharrao Hattiambire,\n     Age-35 years, Occu: President,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Tejasvi Shikshan Sanskar Bahu-uddeshiy\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Taroda (Kh),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded,\n     R\/o-Plot No.1, Abhijit Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Near B &amp; C Colony, Taroda (Bk),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n     2) The Principal Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n                   \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n        \n\n     3) The Director Education (Secondary),\n      \n\n        Directorate of Secondary and\n        Higher Secondary Education,  \n   \n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n\n     4) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n\n\n\n\n\n        Education, Latur Division, Latur.\n\n     5) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Nanded Zilla Parishad,\n        Dist-Nanded.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              19\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Paschim Maharashtra Education\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Trust, Hasan Khan Educational\n     Campus, 51, Mithanagar, Kondhwa Kh,\n     District-Pune,\n     Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Rasid Hasan Khan,\n     Age-Major, Occu:Social-work,\n     R\/o-51\/52, Mithanagar,\n     Kondhwa Kh, District-Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                    \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n                   \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n   \n\n\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n             \n                            WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:28 :::\n                              20\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.904 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Sanjay s\/o Bhagwanrao Suryawanshi,\n     Age-36 years, Occu: Service and\n     Secretary of Shiv Samarth Seva Bhavi\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Sanstha, Latur, R\/o-Narayanagar,\n     Latur, Tq. and Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,  \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (School Education),\n                   \n        M.S., Mumbai,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur,\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              21\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Rajendra s\/o Nivrutirao Deshmukh,\n     Age-39 years, Occu: Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Shri Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded,\n     R\/o-Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                 \n     2) The Principal Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                \n        \n\n     3) The Director Education (Primary),\n        Directorate of Secondary and\n      \n\n        Higher Secondary Education,  \n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n        Education, Latur Division, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Nanded Zilla Parishad,\n        Dist-Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              22\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Dr. Rajeshwar s\/o Hariharrao Hattiambire,\n     Age-35 years, Occu: President,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Tejasvi Shikshan Sanskar Bahu-uddeshiy\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Taroda (Kh),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded,\n     R\/o-Plot No.1, Abhijit Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Near B &amp; C Colony, Taroda (Bk),\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n     2) The Principal Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n                   \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n        \n\n     3) The Director Education (Primary),\n      \n\n        Directorate of Secondary and\n        Higher Secondary Education,  \n   \n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n\n\n     4) The Deputy Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n        Education, Latur Division, Latur.\n\n     5) The Education Officer (primary),\n        Nanded Zilla Parishad,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Dist-Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              23\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1172 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Shri. Sainath Gramin Vikas Mandal Va\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Shikshan Sanstha, Kandharewadi,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n     Shri. Nagorao s\/o Namdeorao Amlapure,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-40 years, Occ:Agriculture and\n     Social Work, R\/o-Kandharewadi,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n                    \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n                   \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n      \n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n   \n\n\n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4. \n                          ...\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              24\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1414 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     Punjabai Mahila Aadiwasi Sanstha,\n     Talyechiwadi, Tq-Hadgaon,\n     Dist-Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Through it's President,\n     Smt. Sushilabai s\/o Baprao Wakode,\n     Age-47 years, Occ:Agriculture and\n     Social Work, R\/o-Talyechiwadi,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n                    \n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                   \n     2) The Director Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n      \n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary High),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              25\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1417 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Bashir s\/o Usman Shaikh,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Prakash Nagar, Latur,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n                    \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education \n                   \n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai.\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n      \n\n        Aurangabad.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              26\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1418 OF 2010\n\n     Venkat s\/o Tukaram Bansode,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Driver Colony, Old Ausa Road,\n     Tq. and Dist-Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai,\n                \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n      \n\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2010\n\n     Gangadhar s\/o Venkatrao Aradle,\n     Age-38 years, Occu: Service \n     R\/o-Keshavnagar, Ambajogai Road,\n     Tq. and Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              27\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        (School Education),\n        M.S., Mumbai,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Education, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n                    \n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                   \n                          ...\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n      \n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n   \n\n\n\n                           WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri. Sai Shaikshanik Sanstha,\n     Shri Ganeshya Namha Housing\n     Society, RH-16, Room No.20 &amp; 21,\n     Bajaj Nagar, M.I.D.C. Waluj,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Aurangabad, Through its President,\n     Shaikh Faiyyazuddin Bahouddin,\n     Age-34 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Bajaj Nagar, Waluj,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              28\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education &amp; Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Maharashtra State,\n        Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     4) The Joint Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.\n                    \n     5) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n      \n\n        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n   \n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                           WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1564 OF 2010\n\n\n     Matoshri Asarabai Shikshan Sanstha,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Aurangabad, Through its President,\n     Sow. Shobha Dinkar Bade,\n     Age-37 years, Occu: Housewife,\n     R\/o-Flat No.3, Plot No.252,\n     Ravikiran Apartment, \n     Nandanwan Colony, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              29\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                    \n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n                   \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n      \n\n\n                           WITH\n   \n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1566 OF 2010\n\n     Jaikishan Shikshan Sanstha,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Plot No.25, Navbharat Housing\n     Society, N-8, CIDCO, Aurangabad,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Sow. Kavita w\/o- Kauthikrao Wagh,\n     Age-44 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Plot No.4 &amp; 5,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Pruthvi Nagar, Beed By-pass Road,\n     Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS            \n      \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              30\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n                    \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                   \n                          ...\n\n                                  WITH\n      \n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1567 OF 2010\n   \n\n\n\n     Sanmati Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n     Maharani Laxmibai Road,\n     Parbhani, Through its Secretary,\n     Shri Vishal Gangadharrao Wattamwar,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Age-36 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Parbhani, Dist-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              31\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                           \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 \n                     ig            WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1569 OF 2010\n                   \n     Durgamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     N-11, F 15\/16, Navjivan Colony,\n      \n\n     Shopping Centre, Hudco, Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n   \n\n\n\n     Sau. Mangal Pralhad Jadhav,\n     Age-40 years, Occu:Household,\n     R\/o-Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              32\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                           WITH\n                    \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2010\n                   \n     Matoshri Asarabai Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Aurangabad, Through its President,\n     Sow. Shobha Dinkar Bade,\n     Age-37 years, Occu: Housewife,\n      \n\n     R\/o-Flat No.3, Plot No.252,\n     Ravikiran Apartment, \n   \n\n\n\n     Nandanwan Colony, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              33\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...               \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                           \n      \n     Jay Shriram Mahila Bahuuddeshiya\n     Shaikshanik Sanstha, Hudco,\n                 \n     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,\n     Sow. Sangita Bhausaheb Tathe,\n     Age-41 years, Occ:Household,\n                \n     N-11, C-4, 13\/3, Gajanan Nagar,\n     Hudco, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n      \n\n            VERSUS             \n   \n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:29 :::\n                              34\n\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1581 OF 2010\n\n     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Mandal, Hudco, N-12, Aurangabad,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Kishor Baburao Nagare,\n     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     N-11, C-5, 11\/2, Dwarka Nagar,\n     Hudco, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n                \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n      \n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n\n\n\n\n\n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              35\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1583 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Kishor Baburao Nagare,\n     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,\n     N-11, C-5, 11\/2, Dwarka Nagar,\n     Hudco, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n                    \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                   \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n      \n\n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n                 \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              36\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 2010\n\n     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Mandal, Through its Secretary,\n     Kishor Baburao Nagare,\n     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     N-11, C-5, 11\/2, Dwarka Nagar,\n     Hudco, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                 \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n                \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              37\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Shri Shamgir Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its Executive President,\n     Shri Vasant s\/o Gunwantrao Patil,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Age-62 years, Occu:Retired,\n     R\/o-Bhagyajyoti Niwas,\n     Vithal Society, Nanded Road,\n     Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n                 \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n      \n\n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              38\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.5655 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Shivparvati Shikshan Sanstha,\n     At Malkondji, Taluka-Ausa,\n     District-Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Through its Secretary,\n     Advocate Madhukar s\/o Pralhad Rajmane,\n     Age-50 years, Occu: Advocate,\n     R\/o-Malkondji, Tq-Ausa,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n                 \n        School Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                \n     2) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur Division,\n        Latur.\n      \n\n     3) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for    \n\n\n\n\n\n        Petitioner.\n        Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              39\n\n                 \n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8336 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Samjvikas Prathisthan,\n     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,\n     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,\n     District-Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Through it's Secretary,\n     Haridas Shantaram Doke,\n     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri &amp; Business,\n     R\/o- At &amp; Post: Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Dist-Ahmednagar.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                    \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                   \n        Through its Secretary,\n        The Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,\n        Dist-Ahmednagar,\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n                 \n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              40\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.466 OF 2010\n\n     Pradnya Karuna Education Society,\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Chautha, Tq. &amp; Dist-Buldhana,\n     Through its President,\n     Trimbakrao s\/o Namdeorao Napte,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Age-45 years, Occu:Social Service,\n     R\/o-Chautha, Tq. &amp; Dist-Buldhana.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        School and Education\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,ig\n     2) The Deputy Director of\n        Education, Aurangabad Division,\n                \n        Aurangabad.\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,   \n      \n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n   \n\n\n\n        Mr.B.S. Shinde Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.470 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Pradnya Karuna Education Society,\n     Chautha, Tq. &amp; Dist-Buldhana,\n     Through its President,\n     Trimbakrao s\/o Namdeorao Napte,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Social Service,\n     R\/o-Chautha, Tq. &amp; Dist-Buldhana.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              41\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n        School and Education\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Deputy Director of\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        Education, Nashik Division,\n        Nashik.\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                 \n                          ...\n        Mr.B.S. Shinde Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n                \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n      \n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2010\n   \n\n\n\n     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, \n     Salapuri, Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani,\n     (Through its President,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Pralhad Baburao More,\n     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-At Post-Salapuri,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              42\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (School Education),\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n        M.S., Mumbai,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n        Education, Aurangabad,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   \n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n                 WITH \n                \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1710 OF 2010\n\n\n     The Secretary Gajanan Shikshan\n      \n\n     Prasarak Mandal, Sanguchiwadi,\n     Taluka-Kandhar, District-Nanded,\n   \n\n\n\n     Through Secretary,\n     Ramchandra s\/o Sukhdeo Yelwad,\n     Age-49 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Sanguchiwadi, Tq-Kandhar,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n        School Education &amp; Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Dy. Director of Education,\n        Latur, District-Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              43\n\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                          ...\n        Mr.P.B. Patil Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                          ...\n\n\n                 WITH \n\n\n\n\n                           \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1711 OF 2010\n                 \n     The Secretary Gajanan Shikshan\n     Prasarak Mandal, Sanguchiwadi,\n                \n     Taluka-Kandhar, District-Nanded,\n     Through Secretary,\n     Ramchandra s\/o Sukhdeo Yelwad,\n     Age-49 years, Occu:Agril.,\n      \n\n     R\/o-Sanguchiwadi, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n        School Education &amp; Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n\n     2) The Dy. Director of Education,\n        Latur, District-Latur,\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              44\n\n        Mr.P.B. Patil Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.738 OF 2010\n\n     Yeshwant Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Prasarak Mandal, at Ganjur,\n     Tq-Chakur, District-Latur,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shri Balasaheb s\/o Ambadas Garad,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Age-40 years, R\/o-Ganjur, \n     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n                \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Development \n        Department, Maharashtra State,\n      \n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education (Primary),\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     \n        Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              45\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2010\n\n     Sanjay s\/o Bhagwanrao Suryawanshi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Age-36 years, Occu: Service and\n     Secretary of Trimbkeshwar Shikshan\n     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     R\/o-Narayanagar, Latur,\n     Tq. and Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,ig\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (School Education),\n                \n        M.S., Mumbai,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur,\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:30 :::\n                              46\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1098 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahu-Udheshiya\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Bhandari Colony,\n     Gangakhed, Taluka-Gangakhed,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     District-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        (Through Secretary,\n        Secondary Education Department)\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n        Education, Pune.\n                \n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n      \n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.R. Choukidar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n   \n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1100 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahu-Udheshiya\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Bhandari Colony,\n     Gangakhed, Taluka-Gangakhed,\n     District-Parbhani.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                              47\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        (Through Secretary,\n        Secondary Education Department)\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Secondary and Higher Secondary\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n        Education, Pune.\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   \n\n\n\n\n                           \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n                 \n        Mr.S.R. Choukidar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                \n                          ...\n\n\n                 WITH\n      \n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2010\n   \n\n\n\n     Jai Baliraja Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through it's Secretary\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri Shajuraj s\/o Janardhan Gore,\n     Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture\n     and social work, R\/o-Manaspuri,\n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                              48\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                           \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n                 \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2010\n                \n     Rajeev Gramin Vikas Mandal,\n     Umardari (De), Tq-Mukhed,\n     Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its President,\n      \n\n     Khushal Shankarrao Patil,\n     Age-55 years, Occu:Agril.\n   \n\n\n\n     and Social Work, R\/o-Umardari,\n     Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                              49\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n             \n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                           \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2010\n                 \n     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya\n     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,\n                \n     Dist-Osmanabad,\n     Through its President,\n     Angad s\/o Darideo Chavan,\n     Age-50 years, R\/o-Javala (Kh),\n      \n\n     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.\n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n\n     2) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Beed.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                              50\n\n        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                          ...    \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1162 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya\n     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,\n     Dist-Osmanabad,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Through its President,\n     Angad s\/o Darideo Chavan,\n     Age-50 years, R\/o-Javala (Kh),\n                 \n     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n      \n\n        Through the Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n   \n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n             \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                   51\n\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya\n     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,\n     Dist-Osmanabad,\n     Through its President,\n     Angad s\/o Darideo Chavan,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Age-50 years, R\/o-Javala (Kh),\n     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                               \n                  \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                 \n     2) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n      \n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...    \n\n                  WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                   52\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1171 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Shri Sainath Gramin Vikas Mandal Va\n     Shikshan Sanstha, Kandharewadi,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n     Shri Nagorao s\/o Namdeorao Amlapure,\n     Occ:Agriculture and Social Work,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     R\/o-Kandharewadi, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                             \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                  \n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department, \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                 \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n      \n\n\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  \n                         WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                   53\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Balaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Talyachiwadi, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Smt. Sushilabai s\/o Baprao Wakode,\n     Age-47 years, Occ:Agriculture and\n     Social Work, R\/o-Talyechiwadi,\n     Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Through it's Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                  \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.\n                 \n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary High),\n      \n\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2010\n\n     Vishwakarma Shikshan Prasarak\n     Va Gramin Vikas Mandal, Sant\n\n\n\n\n\n     Eknath Co-op. Housing Society,\n     Opp-Akashwani, Jalna Road,\n     Aurangabad, Through it's President,\n     Shri Panjabrao Wadje,\n     Age-45  Years, Occu:Social Work.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                   54\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary, Ministry of\n        School Education,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n        Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, \n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Secondary and Higher\n        Secondary Education\n        Directorate, \n        Maharashtra State, Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Division,\n        Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                             \n                          ...\n        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.\n                  \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1473 OF 2010\n\n     Chiukau Baalsanskar Mandal,\n     Heramb Housing Group,\n      \n\n     RX-5\/3, Room No.1, Bajaj Nagar,\n     M.I.D.C. Waluj, Aurangabad,\n   \n\n\n\n     Through its President,\n     Ishwar Gopkrao Jadhav,\n     Age-38 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Bajaj Nagar, Waluj,\n     Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad.       ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        School Education &amp; Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                55\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Maharashtra State,\n        Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     4) The Joint Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     5) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.\n\n     6) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                             \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  \n                  WITH\n                 \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1476 OF 2010\n\n     Manokamna Purti Mandal,\n     Vaijapur, 41, Sukrut Vinayak\n     Colony, Vaijapur, Tq-Vaijapur,\n      \n\n     Dist-Aurangabad, Through its President,\n     Shri Kachru Madhavrao Salunke,\n   \n\n\n\n     Age-50 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Vaijapur, Tq-Vaijapur,\n     Dist-Aurangabad.\n                                          ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS     \n             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        School Education &amp; Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                56\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Maharashtra State, Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     4) The Joint Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     5) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.\n\n     6) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.  \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                                          ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                  \n                          ...\n\n                  WITH\n                 \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1560 OF 2010\n\n     Durgamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     N-11, F 15\/16, Navjivan Colony,\n      \n\n     Shopping Centre, Hudco, Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n   \n\n\n\n     Sau. Mangal Pralhad Jadhav,\n     Age-40 years, Occu:Household,\n     R\/o-Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:31 :::\n                                   57\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1562 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, Hudco, N-11, Aurangabad,\n     Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Kishor Baburao Nagare,\n     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,\n     N-11, C-5, 11\/2, Dwarka Nagar,\n                  \n     Hudco, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n      \n\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n\n\n\n\n\n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   58\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1563 OF 2010\n\n     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     N-11, Hudco, B 31\/1, Subhashchandra\n     Bosh Nagar, Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,\n     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,\n     R\/o- N-11, B 31\/1, \n     Hudco, Aurangabad.                    ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                  \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n                 \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n      \n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1565 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,\n     N-11, Hudco, B 31\/1, Subhashchandra\n     Bhos Nagar, Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,\n     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,\n     R\/o- N-11, B 31\/1, Hudco, Aurangabad. \n                                         ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   59\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n\n\n\n\n                             \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n                  \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                 \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1568 OF 2010\n      \n\n     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,\n     N-11, Hudco, B 31\/1,\n   \n\n\n\n     Subhashchandra Bose Nagar,\n     Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,\n     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,\n\n\n\n\n\n     R\/o- N-11, B 31\/1, \n     Hudco, Aurangabad.                   ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   60\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n        Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.      ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Bodhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,\n     Through its President,\n                  \n     Pradip Pundalikrao Kandaje,\n     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,\n                 \n     Dist-Jalna.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n      \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n   \n\n\n\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                61\n\n\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1576 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Nisargdeep Shikshan Prasarak\n     Mandal, 12\/7, Banjara Colony,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,\n     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,\n     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Rajendra Nivas, Banjara\n     Naik Nagar, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n                  \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n      \n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2010\n\n     Kai. Tatyasaheb Bahuuddeshiya\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sillod,\n     Tq-Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad,\n     Through its President,\n     Kautikrao Mhatarji Lute,\n     Age-40 years, Occu:Agri.\n     R\/o-Plot No.133\/2, Shivaji Nagar,\n     Sillod, Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   62\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     3) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   \n\n\n\n\n                             \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n                  \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                 \n                          ...\n\n                  WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2010\n      \n\n\n     Bhagwan Pratishthan,\n   \n\n\n\n     \"Sandip\", Opp. Labhkshetra Office,\n     Garkheda Road, Aurangabad,\n     Through its Executive Trustee-\n     Vinayak Saluba Wagh, Age-63 years,\n     Aurangabad.                     \n\n\n\n\n\n                                         ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                63\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.       \n                                         ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2064 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Lokseva Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi\n     Sanstha, Through its Secretary-\n                  \n     Shaikh Gafar Gani,\n     Age-42 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Gauspura, Galli No.1,\n                 \n     Scrap Market, Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n      \n\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n   \n\n\n\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n\n\n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   64\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2065 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Lokseva Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi\n     Sanstha, Through its Secretary-\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Shaikh Gafar Gani,\n     Age-42 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Gauspura, Galli No.1,\n     Scrap Market, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n                  \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.           \n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2066 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Adhunik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     Aurangabad, Through its President,\n     Shaikh Farukh Rauf,\n     Age-35 years, Occu:President,\n     R\/o-Plot No.129, Aref Colony,\n     Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                65\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Beed.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n                  \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n                  WITH \n      \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2195 OF 2010\n\n     Ul Raheman Educational &amp; Social\n      \n\n     Welfare Foundation,\n     Through its Secretary,\n   \n\n\n\n     Kazi Abdul Samad Hakim,\n     Age-60 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Opp. S.T. Workshop,\n     Ambajogai Road, Latur, Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS            \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                66\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...         \n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Sahayog Kranti Bahuudeshiya\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Banjara Colony,\n     Aurangabad,Through its Secretary,\n     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o- 17\/2, Rajendra Nivas,\n     Banjara Colony, Naik Nagar,\n                  \n     Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS            \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n      \n\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n\n\n\n\n\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH      \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                 67\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n      \n     Jay Shriram Mahila Bahuuddeshiya\n     Shaikshanik Sanstha, Hudco,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,\n     Sow. Sangita Bhausaheb Tathe,\n     Age-41 years, Occ:Household,\n     N-11, C-4, 13\/3, Gajanan Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Hudco, Aurangabad.                    ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS           \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                               \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n                  \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n   \n\n\n\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                  WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2010\n\n     Bodhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,\n     Through its President,\n     Pradip Pundalikrao Kandaje,\n     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,\n     Dist-Jalna.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:32 :::\n                                   68\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Education, Aurangabad Region,\n        Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   \n\n\n\n\n                             \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n                  \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                 \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.6477 OF 2009\n      \n\n\n     Dr. Sheshrao s\/o Ganpatrao Bahekar,\n     Age-Major, Occu: President of\n   \n\n\n\n     Vivekanand Seva Kendra, Partur,\n     R\/o-Partur, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (School Education), M.S. Mumbai.\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                 69\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                          ...\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.8338 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke\n     Samjvikas Prathisthan,\n     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,\n     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     District-Ahmednagar,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n                  \n     Haridas Shantaram Doke,\n     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri &amp; Business,\n     R\/o- At &amp; Post: Ahmednagar,\n     Dist-Ahmednagar.\n                 \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n      \n\n\n        The Department of School\n        Education and Sports\n   \n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Dist-Ahmednagar,\n\n     3) Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n\n                   WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                   70\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1739 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Lumbani Mahila Mandal Aurad (G),\n     Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad,\n     Through it's Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Vikas Bhairoba Gaikwad,\n     Age-35 years, Occu:Secretary,\n     R\/o- Vikas Niwas, Behind Bharat\n     Vidyalaya, Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Through Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n                  \n     2) The Deputy Director of Education,\n        Latur Region, Latur.\n                 \n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.  \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n      \n\n\n        Mr.P.B. Gapat Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n   \n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1795 OF 2010\n\n     Roshan Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan\n     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shaikh Mumtaj Abdulkarimsab,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Age-43 years, Occu: Service,\n     R\/o-Hind Colony, Ambajogai Road,\n     Latur.                            ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                   71\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur Region,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                             \n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n                  \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 \n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1796 OF 2010\n      \n\n\n     Kai. Saw. Vanarasibai Kaldate\n   \n\n\n\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha,  \n     At Post-Brahmangaon, \n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani, Through,\n     Sanjay s\/o Vasantrao Gavane,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Age-30 years, Occu:Secretary,\n     Kai. Saw. Vanarasibai Kaldate\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha,\n     At Post-Brahmangaon,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.         ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n        Department of School Education\n        &amp; Sports Department,\n        Mantralaya Vistar Bhavan,\n        Maharashtra State, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                 72\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        (Secondary &amp; Higher Secondary),\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Maharashtra State, Pune-1,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of Education, \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Education Department,\n        Aurangabad Division,\n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Aurangabad.\n     4) The Education Officer,\n        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Parbhani.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Gadge Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                  \n                          ...\n                 \n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1804 OF 2010\n\n     Roshan Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan\n     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,\n      \n\n\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shaikh Mumtaj Abdulkarimsab,\n   \n\n\n\n     Age-43 years, Occu: Service,\n     R\/o-Hind Colony, Ambajogai Road,\n     Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                 73\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                                    ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2010\n\n     Dnyanjyot Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its President,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Babasaheb s\/o Govindsing Bais,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Agri.,\n                  \n     R\/o-Sonak Pimpalgaon,\n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Jalna.          \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya, \n      \n\n\n        Mumbai-32,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Assistant Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.A.N. Kakade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                   74\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1810 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Maulana Azad Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi\n     Sanstha, Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga,\n     Through its President -\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Shaikh Abdul Khalil Karimsab,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o-Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga,\n     Dist-Latur.                       ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                  \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n                 \n     3) The Deputy Director of \n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur.\n      \n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n   \n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n\n        the Respondents.        \n                         ...\n                \n                             WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1244 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n     Jawaharlal Nehru Shikshan\n     Prasarak Mandal, Umardari,\n     Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Krushal Shankarrao Patil,\n     Age-55 years, Occu:Agril.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                   75\n\n     and Social Work, \n     R\/o-Umardari, Tq-Mukhed,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Maharashtra State,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        of Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur.    \n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded,\n                 \n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Nanded.             ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n      \n\n                          ...\n   \n\n\n\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1657 OF 2010\n\n     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.                      ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                76\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.               ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n\n\n\n\n                             \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n                  \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1658 OF 2010\n\n     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n                 \n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,\n      \n\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n   \n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of\n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                77\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1661 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n     Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,\n                  \n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n      \n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        State of Maharashtra,\n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n\n\n\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of\n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                78\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2010\n\n     Bhimashankar Shikshan Sanstha,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Director,\n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n                  \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n                 \n        State of Maharashtra,\n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of\n        Education, Latur Region,\n      \n\n\n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.                ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1665 OF 2010\n\n     Bhimashankar Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n     Through its Director,\n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                79\n\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        State of Maharashtra,\n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     3) The Deputy Director of\n        Education, Latur Region,\n                  \n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n                 \n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n      \n\n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n   \n\n\n\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1666 OF 2010\n\n     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,\n     Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,\n     R\/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,\n     Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                80\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        State of Maharashtra,\n        Pune, Dist-Pune,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director of\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Education, Latur Region,\n        Latur, Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur,\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                  \n                          ...\n        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n                 \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH    \n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1821 OF 2010\n      \n\n\n     Dnyanjyot Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its President,\n   \n\n\n\n     Babasaheb s\/o Govindsing Bais,\n     Age-45 years, Occ:Agri,\n     R\/o-Sonak Pimpalgaon,\n     Tq, &amp; Dist-Jalna.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n\n\n\n\n\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Assistant Secretary,\n        School Education and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                 81\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Jalna,\n                                      ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                          ...\n        Mr.Amol N. Kakade Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Jaikishan Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its Secretary,\n     Sow. Kavita w\/o- Kauthikrao Wagh,\n     Age-44 years, Occu:Service,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     R\/o-Plot No.4 &amp; 5,\n     Pruthvi Nagar, Beed By-pass Road,\n     Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.\n                  \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS            \n                 \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n\n\n\n\n\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:33 :::\n                                82\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1954 OF 2010\n\n     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its President,\n     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o- At Post-Bhokar,\n     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS            \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                             \n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                  \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n                 \n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n      \n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                 \n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 2010\n\n     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its President,\n     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,\n     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o- At Post-Bhokar,\n     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.             ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                                  83\n\n            VERSUS            \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Primary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.          ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                          ...\n                  \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                 \n                          ...\n\n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2010\n      \n\n\n     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj\n     Shikshan Sanstha,\n   \n\n\n\n     Through its President,\n     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,\n     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o- At Post-Bhokar,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS            \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                                 84\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                 WITH\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2010\n\n     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     Shikshan Sanstha,\n     Through its President,\n                  \n     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,\n     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,\n     R\/o- At Post-Bhokar,\n     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.\n                 \n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS            \n      \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n      \n\n\n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n   \n\n\n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n        Latur Region, Latur.\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   \n\n\n\n\n\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                                  85\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1961 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     Sahayog Kranti Bahuudeshiya\n     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Banjara Colony,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     Aurangabad,Through its President,\n     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,\n     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,\n     R\/o- 17\/2, Rajendra Nivas,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Banjara Colony, Naik Nagar,\n     Aurangabad.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS            \n\n\n\n\n                                \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through its Secretary,\n                  \n        School Education Department,\n        Government of Maharashtra,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n                 \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Dy. Director of Education, \n      \n\n\n        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   \n        the Respondents.        \n                          ...\n                                                       \n\n\n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1204 OF 2009\n\n     Mahesh Gramin Bahuuddeshiya\n     Shikshan Sanstha, Ashti, Tq-Ashti,\n     Dist-Beed, Through it's\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                              86\n\n     Administrative Officer,\n     Shivdas Gopinath Vidhate,\n     Age-44 years, Occu:Service &amp; Agri.,\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     3) The Education Officer\n        (Primary\/Secondary),\n                 \n        Zilla Parishad, Beed, \n        Dist-Beed.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                \n                          ...\n        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for \n      \n\n        Respondents.       \n                          ...\n   \n\n\n\n                 WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2009\n\n     Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n     Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Through it's Administrative Officer,\n     Dattatraya Shripati Raut,\n     Age-54 years, Occu:Service &amp; Agri.,\n     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                              87\n\n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Primary),\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n        Zilla Parishad, Beed, Dist-Beed.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                          ...\n        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for \n        Respondents.       \n                          ...\n                 \n                 WITH\n                \n                WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2009\n\n     Shri Chhatrapati Shahu Education\n      \n\n     Society, Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed,\n     Through it's Administrative Officer,\n   \n\n\n\n     Shivdas Gopinath Vidhate,\n     Age-44 years, Occu:Service &amp; Agri.,\n     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through the Secretary,\n        Education Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,\n\n\n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n        Maharashtra State, Pune,\n\n     3) The Education Officer (Secondary)\n        Zilla Parishad, Beed, Dist-Beed.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                              88\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for \n        Respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                 WITH\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Shiv Samarth Seva Bhavi Sanstha,\n     Latur, Through its Secretary,\n     R\/o-Narayangar, Latur,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Tq. &amp; Dist-Latur.\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                \n        Through its Secretary,\n        School Education  and Sports\n        Department, Mantralaya,\n        Mumbai-32,\n      \n\n\n     2) The Director of Education,\n   \n\n\n\n        (School Education),\n        M.S. Mumbai,\n\n     3) The Deputy Director \n\n\n\n\n\n        of Education, Latur,\n         \n     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),\n        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for \n        Respondents.       \n                          ...              \n                             \n              \n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::\n                                    89\n\n                     CORAM:   A.M. KHANWILKAR AND \n                              S.S. SHINDE, JJ.\n             \n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n         \n\n         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON   :  23RD FERBUARY, 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n       \n         JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :  8TH APRIL, 2010\n                                      \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     JUDGMENT (PER: A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)  :\n<\/pre>\n<p>     1.         Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule.   Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.   By   consent <\/p>\n<p>     of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter <\/p>\n<p>     was   taken   up   for   final   hearing   at   the   stage   of <\/p>\n<p>     admission itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.         All   these   Petitions   are   disposed   of   by <\/p>\n<p>     this   Common   Judgment   as   the   same   involve   common <\/p>\n<p>     issues.  All   these   Petitions  are   filed   by <\/p>\n<p>     non-minority  institutions  which  are  registered  as <\/p>\n<p>     public   charitable   trusts,   taking   exception   to <\/p>\n<p>     Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009 on the <\/p>\n<p>     basis  of  which  the proposal  submitted  by each  of <\/p>\n<p>     these   Petitioner   institution   for   starting   a <\/p>\n<p>     primary, secondary or higher secondary school, as <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   90<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the case may be, has been treated as cancelled or <\/p>\n<p>     rejected.   It   is   the   case   of   each   of   these <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners   that   pursuant   to   Government   Circular <\/p>\n<p>     dated   29th   July,   2008   they   submitted   proposal(s) <\/p>\n<p>     for   starting   primary,   secondary   and   higher <\/p>\n<p>     secondary schools on &#8220;permanent no grant basis&#8221; in <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Marathi   medium&#8221;.   It   is   asserted   that   their <\/p>\n<p>     proposal   was   scrutinized   by   the   Committees <\/p>\n<p>     constituted   at   the   District   and   State   level   and <\/p>\n<p>     recommended to the State Government for  approval.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Along   with   the   Petitioners,   several   other <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   had   submitted   their   proposals   which <\/p>\n<p>     were   also   processed   and   pending   with   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   for   appropriate   decision.   The   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government,   however,   by   impugned   Government <\/p>\n<p>     Resolution   dated   20th   July,   2009,   decided   to <\/p>\n<p>     terminate   all   those   proposals   (about   6028)   as <\/p>\n<p>     cancelled   or   rejected   on   the   ground   that <\/p>\n<p>     permission cannot be granted until a comprehensive <\/p>\n<p>     plan   (perspective   plan\/   master   plan)   is   prepared <\/p>\n<p>     with the assistance of experts. Further, depending <\/p>\n<p>     upon the requirement of the school and considering <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   91<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the policy regarding grant of permission to start <\/p>\n<p>     a school, the sub committee of State Cabinet would <\/p>\n<p>     examine the proposals and take decision regarding <\/p>\n<p>     permission   for   a   new   school.   The   English <\/p>\n<p>     translation   of   the   said   Government   Resolution   as <\/p>\n<p>     appended   to   Writ   Petition   No.345   of   2010   reads <\/p>\n<p>     thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;Regarding giving grant to <\/p>\n<p>                    the  primary  and secondary<br \/>\n                    school  (excluding  English <\/p>\n<p>                    Medium)  that  have    been<br \/>\n                    given      permission    on<br \/>\n                    permanent  non grant basis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                      Govt. of Maharashtra<br \/>\n                 Dept. of School Education and<br \/>\n                              Sports <\/p>\n<p>                  Govt. Resolution No.SCG2009\/<br \/>\n                           (588\/09) SE-1<\/p>\n<p>                     Mantralaya Annax Bldg,<br \/>\n                            Mumbai-32. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                       Date : 20 July, 2009<\/p>\n<p>                Preface, <\/p>\n<p>                     To   secure   the   fundamental <\/p>\n<p>                right of right to life to every<br \/>\n                Indian   citizen   and   to   have   to<br \/>\n                right   to   education   to   every<br \/>\n                one,   Hon&#8217;ble   Apex   Court   has<br \/>\n                given   the   direction   to   give<br \/>\n                free   and   compulsory   education<br \/>\n                to children  in the age group 6 <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:34 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          92<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      to   14   and   thereby   86th<br \/>\n      amendment   took   place   in   the<br \/>\n      Indian   constitution   accordingly <\/p>\n<p>      the   right   of   the   child   in   the<br \/>\n      age group 6 to 14 on education<br \/>\n      was         incorporation              as <\/p>\n<p>      fundamental   right.   To   protect<br \/>\n      this   right   of   child   on<br \/>\n      education   as   given   by   Indian<br \/>\n      constitution   central   Govt.   has <\/p>\n<p>      initiated   the   action   to   pass<br \/>\n      the   enactment   on   &#8220;Right   to<br \/>\n      Education.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>            Various   schemes   for <\/p>\n<p>      extension   and   development   of<br \/>\n      education   has   been   implemented <\/p>\n<p>      by   Govt.   in   the   state.   Various<br \/>\n      primary,   secondary   and   Higher<br \/>\n      Secondary   schools   are   in <\/p>\n<p>      operation in the state on aided<br \/>\n      partly   aided,   non   aided<br \/>\n      permanently non aided basis. In<br \/>\n      the   cabinet   meeting   dt.   24th <\/p>\n<p>      November,   2004   the   resolution<br \/>\n      has   been   passed   to   give <\/p>\n<p>      permission   to   Primary,<br \/>\n      Secondary   and   Higher   secondary<br \/>\n      schools   run   by   private<br \/>\n      institutions   on   permanent   non <\/p>\n<p>      aided   basis,   accordingly   since<br \/>\n      2002   the   permission   has   been<br \/>\n      granted   in   the   state   on<br \/>\n      permanent unaided basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Hundred   percent   grant   has <\/p>\n<p>      been   given   to   the   aided   school<br \/>\n      in   the   state   and   as   per   Govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>      resolution   dated   11th   October,<br \/>\n      2000   the   formula   of   giving<br \/>\n      grant   has   been   prescribed.   As<br \/>\n      per   the   formula   20%   grant   on<br \/>\n      fifth   running   year,   40%   on <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         93<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      sixth   running   year,   60%   on<br \/>\n      seventh   year,   80%   on   eighth<br \/>\n      year   and   100   on   ninth   running <\/p>\n<p>      year   has   been   given   to   unaided<br \/>\n      schools on the state.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Consistently   demands   have<br \/>\n      been made to the Govt. to give<br \/>\n      the   grant   to   the   schools   which<br \/>\n      are   on   permanent   non   grant <\/p>\n<p>      basis.   With   the   purpose   to<br \/>\n      enable   primary   and   secondary<br \/>\n      school,   quality   of   education<br \/>\n      and   enabling   the   education<br \/>\n      system   as   the   constitutional <\/p>\n<p>      responsibility   of   primary   and<br \/>\n      secondary   education   is   on <\/p>\n<p>      Govt.,   the   proposal   to   give<br \/>\n      grant   to   primary   and   secondary<br \/>\n      schools   in   the   state   who   have <\/p>\n<p>      been   given   permission   on<br \/>\n      permanent   non   aided   basis   has<br \/>\n      been   submitted   on   16th   June,<br \/>\n      2009 for cabinet consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>      As per the resolution passed in<br \/>\n      cabinet meeting following order <\/p>\n<p>      has   been   issued   regarding<br \/>\n      giving   grant   to   the   schools<br \/>\n      which   are   permanently   unaided<br \/>\n      school.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Govt. Resolution.\n<\/p>\n<p>           On   16th   June   2009   in   the<br \/>\n      cabinet   meeting   at   Vidhan<br \/>\n      Bhavan,   Mumbai   the   discussion <\/p>\n<p>      took   place   on   the   proposal   to<br \/>\n      give   grant   to   the   school   which<br \/>\n      are   permitted   as   permanently<br \/>\n      unaided school and the decision<br \/>\n      is   hereby   declared   as   Govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>      resolution.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         94<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      1.   Excluding   the   English<br \/>\n      schools   which   are   given<br \/>\n      permission   as   permanently <\/p>\n<p>      unaided   schools,   the   word<br \/>\n      &#8220;permanent&#8221;   in   the   permission<br \/>\n      order   of   primary   and   secondary <\/p>\n<p>      schools   of   other   medium   has<br \/>\n      been excluded.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.   The   primary   and   secondary <\/p>\n<p>      schools   on   permanent   unaided<br \/>\n      basis and schools qualifies the<br \/>\n      assessment   with   regard   to   the<br \/>\n      divisions   from   three   years<br \/>\n      (i.e.   from   2012-2013)   will   be <\/p>\n<p>      given   the   grant   as   per   the<br \/>\n      prescribed formula.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.   Right to get grant has not<br \/>\n      been   accrued   despite   of   school <\/p>\n<p>      being   eligible   for   grant<br \/>\n      because   it   is   the   sole<br \/>\n      discretion   of   the   Govt.   to<br \/>\n      provide   grant   and   it   will <\/p>\n<p>      depend on availability of funds<br \/>\n      and   will   not   be   implemented <\/p>\n<p>      with retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.   After   giving   100%   grant   to<br \/>\n      said   school,   the   non   salary <\/p>\n<p>      grant,   pension,   medical<br \/>\n      benefits,   grant   to   additional<br \/>\n      divisions   will   be   made<br \/>\n      applicable   as   per   preventing<br \/>\n      rules and policies and per that<br \/>\n      separate   financial   provision <\/p>\n<p>      has to be made.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.   For  the   eligibility  to   get<br \/>\n      grant,   assessment   has   been<br \/>\n      conducted for concerned school,<br \/>\n      committee   has   been   appointed<br \/>\n      under   the   chairmanship   of   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         95<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      secretary (school education) to<br \/>\n      decide   the   criteria   of<br \/>\n      assessment   and   this   committee <\/p>\n<p>      includes   principal   secondary<br \/>\n      (planning)   Principal   Secondary<br \/>\n      (Finance)   Secretary   (Tribal <\/p>\n<p>      Development)   Secretary   (Social<br \/>\n      Justice). The assessment of the<br \/>\n      schools   will   be   made   according<br \/>\n      to   the   criterias   fixed   by   this <\/p>\n<p>      committee   for   assessment   and<br \/>\n      those   schools   will   be   declared<br \/>\n      as eligible for grant.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.    As   per   the   Govt.   Circular <\/p>\n<p>      dated   29.4.2008,   the   proposals<br \/>\n      were   invited   from   private <\/p>\n<p>      educations institution to start<br \/>\n      primary,   secondary   and   higher<br \/>\n      secondary   schools   on   permanent <\/p>\n<p>      unaided   basis   out   of   which   the<br \/>\n      proposals   those   were   received<br \/>\n      to   start   primary   and   secondary<br \/>\n      schools   of   Marathi   medium   and <\/p>\n<p>      those   proposals   which   are   not<br \/>\n      approved, all pending proposals <\/p>\n<p>      are   hereby   cancelled.   The   sub-\n<\/p>\n<p>      committee   of   cabinet   will   take<br \/>\n      decision   on   the   proposals   for<br \/>\n      other mediums. <\/p>\n<p>      7.   With   regard   to   the<br \/>\n      permission   to   new   primary   and<br \/>\n      secondary          schools,         a<br \/>\n      comprehensive   plan   will   be<br \/>\n      prepared   with   the   assistance <\/p>\n<p>      (considering   the   policy<br \/>\n      regarding   permissions   to<br \/>\n      schools, comprehensive plan and<br \/>\n      requirement   of   school,   the<br \/>\n      cabinet sub committee will take<br \/>\n      decisions   in   relation   with<br \/>\n      permissions of new schools. <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    96<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                     This   Govt.   resolution   is<br \/>\n                available   on   the   portal   of <\/p>\n<p>                Govt.         of         Maharashtra<br \/>\n                (www.maharashtra.gov.in)   having<br \/>\n                computer            code             as <\/p>\n<p>                200990720171423001.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     By   the   name   and   order   of<br \/>\n                Governor of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          -Sd-\n<\/p>\n<p>                           Dr.Suvarna S. Kharat<br \/>\n                             Joint Secretary,<br \/>\n                           Govt of Maharashtra. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.<\/p>\n<p>                Accordingly,   in   all   these   Petitions   the <\/p>\n<p>     above   said   decision   of   the   State   is   challenged <\/p>\n<p>     being ultra vires the Constitution and for further <\/p>\n<p>     relief of direction to the Respondents to consider <\/p>\n<p>     the   proposal   of   the   concerned   Petitioners   in <\/p>\n<p>     accordance   with   provisions   of   Secondary   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     Code   and   to   permit   the   Petitioners   to   start   the <\/p>\n<p>     desired   school   from   academic   year   2010-2011   in <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi   medium   on   permanent   no   grant   basis.   The <\/p>\n<p>     challenge   is   essentially   on   the   basis   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners   have   a   fundamental   right   to   start   a <\/p>\n<p>     new   school   at   a   place   and   in   medium   of   their <\/p>\n<p>     choice   guaranteed   by   Article   19-(1)   (g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    97<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   of   India,   as   right   to   establish   and <\/p>\n<p>     start   a   school   has   been   recognized   as   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     occupation within the meaning of the said Article.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to the Petitioners, since they desire to <\/p>\n<p>     start   a   new   school   in   Marathi   medium   without <\/p>\n<p>     seeking   any   aid   from   the   State   &#8211;   financial   or <\/p>\n<p>     otherwise and on permanent no grant in aid basis, <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   can   only   regulate   that   right     in   the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   general   public   and   by   imposing <\/p>\n<p>     reasonable restrictions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.         Besides,   invoking   Article   19-(1)   (g)   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Constitution   of   India,   the   Petitioners   have <\/p>\n<p>     also   asserted   that   the   blanket   decision   taken   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   Government   to   cancel   all   the   proposals <\/p>\n<p>     and   thereby   reject   the   same     also   impinges   upon <\/p>\n<p>     the   rights   guaranteed   under   Part   III   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   of   India   under   Articles   14,   21   and <\/p>\n<p>     21-A.   In   addition,   the   Petitioners   have   also <\/p>\n<p>     invoked Articles 41, 45, 51-A (h) (j) and (k) of <\/p>\n<p>     the Constitution of India to assail the arbitrary <\/p>\n<p>     action of the State. According to the Petitioners, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    98<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   mere   fact   that   the   perspective   plan   has   not <\/p>\n<p>     been formulated or is under preparation, cannot be <\/p>\n<p>     the basis to terminate the proposals submitted by <\/p>\n<p>     the Petitioners and that ground is not germane and <\/p>\n<p>     in any case it will not be protected by clause (6) <\/p>\n<p>     of   Article   19   of   the   Constitution   as   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   general   public   and   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restrictions on the exercise of right conferred on <\/p>\n<p>     the Petitioners under Article 19- (1) (g).\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.         According to the Petitioners, considering <\/p>\n<p>     the   constitutional   scheme,   the   existence   of   a <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan and consideration of the proposal <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   institution   who   intends   to   start   a   new <\/p>\n<p>     school   without   the   aid   of   the   State   either <\/p>\n<p>     financial   or   otherwise,   has   no   causal   connection <\/p>\n<p>     and cannot be the basis to turn down the proposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Moreover,   the   State   Government   could   not   have <\/p>\n<p>     ignored   the   cases   of   the   institutions   which   were <\/p>\n<p>     recommended by local committees at the District as <\/p>\n<p>     well   as   State   level.   The   fact   that   such <\/p>\n<p>     recommendation was made by the local committees of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     99<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the  State  presupposes  that  there  was  a  felt need <\/p>\n<p>     to   start   a   new   school   in   the   given   locality   and <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   institution   has   complied   with   all   the <\/p>\n<p>     formalities including providing of infrastructure.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According   to   the   Petitioners,   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     primary   obligation   to   impart   education   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     children   between   the   age   of   6   to   14   years,   does <\/p>\n<p>     not   mean   that   the   State   has   exclusivity   on   the <\/p>\n<p>     said activity; and that right to open educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions,   which   is   recognized   as   a   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     occupation within the meaning of Article 19 (1)(g) <\/p>\n<p>     to     the   citizens   or   educational   institutions   who <\/p>\n<p>     want   to   start   the   schools   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis   without   taking   any   assistance   from   the <\/p>\n<p>     State, financial or otherwise, cannot be eclipsed <\/p>\n<p>     or   rendered   nugatory.   Both   the   right   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions   and   also   obligation   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Government   can   and   ought   to   co-exist.   The <\/p>\n<p>     induction of private institutions in the field of <\/p>\n<p>     education would introduce competition, healthy for <\/p>\n<p>     the   growth   of   quality   education   and   not   merely <\/p>\n<p>     imparting   of   paper   compliance   education   imparted <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   100<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     by   the   State   through   the   schools   receiving   grant <\/p>\n<p>     in   aid   which   have   dearth   of   highly   trained   and <\/p>\n<p>     professional   staff   and   are   notorious   for   lack   of <\/p>\n<p>     punctuality and efficiency.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.         According to the Petitioners,   the State <\/p>\n<p>     can   interdict   the   right   of   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   only   by   way   of   regulating   the <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   in   matters   of   professional   or <\/p>\n<p>     technical   qualifications   necessary   of   the   staff <\/p>\n<p>     and   of   the   infrastructure,   as   pre-   condition   for <\/p>\n<p>     grant of recognition to the school started by the <\/p>\n<p>     private educational institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     7.         The other issue raised by the Petitioners <\/p>\n<p>     is that the purported policy decision of the State <\/p>\n<p>     results   in   discriminatory   treatment   meted   out   to <\/p>\n<p>     the   managements   who   had   submitted   proposals   to <\/p>\n<p>     start new schools on the basis of language. In as <\/p>\n<p>     much as, only the proposals in respect of Marathi <\/p>\n<p>     medium schools have been cancelled and will not be <\/p>\n<p>     entertained until the perspective plan is prepared <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   101<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     and   finalized.   There   is   no   such   restriction   with <\/p>\n<p>     regard   to   starting   of   schools   in   other   languages <\/p>\n<p>     such   as   Urdu,   English,   Hindi,   Gujrathi   etc. <\/p>\n<p>     Besides, the policy is applicable only to opening <\/p>\n<p>     of   new   schools   in   Marathi   medium   by   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions;   whereas   the   local   Governments <\/p>\n<p>     namely,   Municipal   Councils   or   Corporations   are <\/p>\n<p>     free  to open  Marathi   medium  schools  at  the place <\/p>\n<p>     of   their   choice   in   absence   of   the   perspective <\/p>\n<p>     plan,   which   also   results   in   discrimination.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According   to   the   Petitioners,   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Secondary   Schools   Code   which   are   merely <\/p>\n<p>     compendium   of   administrative   instructions   provide <\/p>\n<p>     for   procedure   for   starting   a   new   school,   the <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional   validity   thereof   itself   is <\/p>\n<p>     questionable.   The   State   Government   can   only <\/p>\n<p>     regulate  the educational  institutions  by imposing <\/p>\n<p>     reasonable   restrictions   as   condition   for   its <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     8.         These are the broad issues raised by the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners in these batch of Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   102<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     9.         The State has opposed these Petitions by <\/p>\n<p>     filing   common   affidavit   in   Writ   Petition   No.8337 <\/p>\n<p>     of   2009   of   Anil   Madhavrao   Battalwar,   Joint <\/p>\n<p>     Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, <\/p>\n<p>     Mantralaya.   The   substance   of   the   reply   affidavit <\/p>\n<p>     is that the Government Resolution dated 20th July, <\/p>\n<p>     2009 restates the policy decision of the State of <\/p>\n<p>     not   permitting   any   new   Marathi   medium   school <\/p>\n<p>     through   out   the   State   of   Maharashtra   until   the <\/p>\n<p>     preparation   and   finalization   of   the   perspective <\/p>\n<p>     plan. It is stated that as of now in the State of <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra   there   are   approximately   20,000 <\/p>\n<p>     secondary schools, 6,000 primary schools and 6,500 <\/p>\n<p>     higher   secondary   schools   in   existence   run   by <\/p>\n<p>     private managements. These schools were allowed to <\/p>\n<p>     start as per the prevailing policy of the State at <\/p>\n<p>     the relevant time either on grant in aid basis or <\/p>\n<p>     permanently no grant in aid basis. Insofar as the <\/p>\n<p>     grant   in   aid   basis   schools   were   concerned,   they <\/p>\n<p>     receive   grants   in   a   phased   manner   as   per   the <\/p>\n<p>     policy   mentioned   in   Government   Resolution   dated <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    103<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     11th October, 2000. They would start receiving 20% <\/p>\n<p>     grants at the 5th year, 40% at the 6th year, 60% <\/p>\n<p>     at the 7th year, 80% at the 8th year and 100% at <\/p>\n<p>     the   9th   year.   Whereas,   schools   started   in   tribal <\/p>\n<p>     area   on   grant   in   aid   basis,   would   receive   100% <\/p>\n<p>     grant at the 5th year from starting of the school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It   is   further   stated   that   considering   the <\/p>\n<p>     financial   compulsion   for   providing   grants   in   aid <\/p>\n<p>     to the schools run by the private management, the <\/p>\n<p>     Government  evolved  policy  for granting  permission <\/p>\n<p>     to the schools run by the private management only <\/p>\n<p>     on permanent non grant basis vide Cabinet decision <\/p>\n<p>     dated   24th   November,   2001.   On   the   basis   of   that <\/p>\n<p>     policy,   permissions   were   granted   on   permanent   no <\/p>\n<p>     grant   basis   if   the   management   was   ready   and <\/p>\n<p>     willing to run the school on that basis and were <\/p>\n<p>     to give undertaking to that effect. However, later <\/p>\n<p>     on   the   private   management   started   filing   Writ <\/p>\n<p>     Petitions   in   the   High   Court   and   in   one   of   such <\/p>\n<p>     Writ Petitions being Writ Petition No.3894 of 2002 <\/p>\n<p>     an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to <\/p>\n<p>     the   effect   that   the   Government   after   due <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   104<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     consideration has decided to formulate the policy <\/p>\n<p>     to   sanction   grant   in   aid   to   permanently   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     secondary schools on the terms stipulated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was stated that after the financial position of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   Government   improves,   necessary   action <\/p>\n<p>     for   formulating   such   scheme   would   be   taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further,   in   view   of   the   management,   teachers, <\/p>\n<p>     unions and peoples representatives, a proposal for <\/p>\n<p>     bringing schools from permanent no grant basis to <\/p>\n<p>     grant  in  aid basis  was  considered  by the  Cabinet <\/p>\n<p>     on 16th June, 2009. In view of the 86th Amendment <\/p>\n<p>     to   the   constitution   which   has   made   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     education as fundamental right and considering the <\/p>\n<p>     directive principles enshrined in the Constitution <\/p>\n<p>     such   as   Article   41   and   45   envisaging <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional obligation of the State to provide <\/p>\n<p>     free education to the children in the age of 6 to <\/p>\n<p>     14   years,   the   State   Government   decided   to   bring <\/p>\n<p>     permanent  no  grant  schools  on grant  in  aid basis <\/p>\n<p>     vide Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It  was a conscious  decision  taken  at the  highest <\/p>\n<p>     level   after   due   deliberations   in   order   to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   105<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     reconsider   the   existing   educational   system   and <\/p>\n<p>     make it more efficient so as to lay the foundation <\/p>\n<p>     for   the   development   of   common   people   and   to <\/p>\n<p>     provide  school  system  imparting  quality  education <\/p>\n<p>     to   all   children   and   in   particular,   social   and <\/p>\n<p>     economical   disadvantaged   population   in   order   to <\/p>\n<p>     maintain   high   standards   of   education   and   to <\/p>\n<p>     prevent exploitation of teachers in the schools on <\/p>\n<p>     account of non payment of salary etc. Accordingly, <\/p>\n<p>     the   Government   decided   to   prepare   a   master   plan <\/p>\n<p>     based on the need of the society with reference to <\/p>\n<p>     the population and to frame a comprehensive policy <\/p>\n<p>     for   education   with   reference   to   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>     permission to the schools. Reference is also made <\/p>\n<p>     to   the   decision   of   our   High   Court   in   case   of <\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1833381\/\">Gramvikas   Shikshan   Prasarak   Mandal   vs.   The   State  <\/p>\n<p>     of   Maharashtra   and   others<\/a>,   reported   in   AIR   2000 <\/p>\n<p>     Bombay,   Page   437,   in   which   the   State   Government <\/p>\n<p>     was   called   upon   to   prepare   a   master   plan   and <\/p>\n<p>     consider   other   related   issues   regarding   the <\/p>\n<p>     opening   of   new   schools   in   Marathi   medium.   It   is <\/p>\n<p>     stated   that   for   granting   permission   to   open   new <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:35 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    106<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     schools,   the   prime   consideration   is   the   strength <\/p>\n<p>     of existing schools vis-a-vis the availability of <\/p>\n<p>     the   students.   It   is   stated   that   the   strength   of <\/p>\n<p>     existing schools is sufficient to accommodate the <\/p>\n<p>     students   and   in   fact   the   schools   are   facing <\/p>\n<p>     shortage   of   students   resulting   in   difficulty   to <\/p>\n<p>     maintain the divisions in the schools. On account <\/p>\n<p>     of   shortage   of   students,   the   divisions   are <\/p>\n<p>     required   to   be   closed   down   and   the   teachers   are <\/p>\n<p>     becoming   surplus.   Considering   the   situation,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government changed the criteria of maintaining the <\/p>\n<p>     divisions   and   instead   of   70   students   for   first <\/p>\n<p>     division   and   for   additional   division   50   students <\/p>\n<p>     per   division,   later   on   in   the   year   1996   reduced <\/p>\n<p>     the   said   ratio   to   25,   20   and   15   students   in   a <\/p>\n<p>     division   in   urban,   rural   and   tribal   areas <\/p>\n<p>     respectively,   vide   circular   dated   20th   February, <\/p>\n<p>     1996 and 2nd February, 2009. It is stated that the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   had   already   started   preparation   of <\/p>\n<p>     master   plan   from   the   year   2006.   The   preliminary <\/p>\n<p>     criteria for collating information on the basis of <\/p>\n<p>     which the master plan would be finalized, is found <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   107<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     in Government Circular dated 13th September, 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It  is stated  that  granting   new permission  to  the <\/p>\n<p>     schools   could   affect   quality   of   education   which <\/p>\n<p>     would be matter of concern for students, teachers <\/p>\n<p>     and   if   the   school   is   on   grant   in   aid   basis, <\/p>\n<p>     statutory   obligation   to   absorb   such   teachers   and <\/p>\n<p>     payment   of   their   salary   is   on   the   Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After considering all these factors, decision was <\/p>\n<p>     taken as reflected in Government Resolution dated <\/p>\n<p>     20th   July,   2009   that   as   per   the   master   plan <\/p>\n<p>     considering  the need  of the  school  of that  area, <\/p>\n<p>     the decision about the new school, permission will <\/p>\n<p>     be   given.   Further,   the   master   plan   for   Marathi <\/p>\n<p>     medium   primary   and   secondary   school   submitted   by <\/p>\n<p>     the Director of Primary and Secondary Education is <\/p>\n<p>     under   consideration   of   the   Government.   The <\/p>\n<p>     Government is also considering the school mapping <\/p>\n<p>     exercise   for   other   medium   schools   based   on   road <\/p>\n<p>     distance, population, gross enrollment rate. It is <\/p>\n<p>     stated   that   the   experience   of   the   Government   to <\/p>\n<p>     allow   private   management   to   start   schools   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis   was   not   encouraging.   In <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   108<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     that,   the   Government   receives   many   complaints <\/p>\n<p>     regarding   standard   of   education,   availability   of <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure,   non   payment   of   salary   and <\/p>\n<p>     appointment   of   untrained   teachers   without <\/p>\n<p>     following rules in such schools. Therefore, as per <\/p>\n<p>     the Cabinet decision, with a view to evaluate the <\/p>\n<p>     situation,   it   constituted   a   Committee   of <\/p>\n<p>     Secretaries  regarding  eligibility  and revision  of <\/p>\n<p>     norms to grant in aid schools. It is stated that <\/p>\n<p>     approximately   7840   proposals   were   received   for <\/p>\n<p>     secondary   schools,   out   of   which   6028   proposals <\/p>\n<p>     were for starting Marathi medium secondary schools <\/p>\n<p>     and   approximately   10000   proposals   were   received <\/p>\n<p>     for primary schools. Therefore, Government took a <\/p>\n<p>     policy   decision   not   to   consider   any   proposal   for <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi   medium   primary   and   secondary   schools   and <\/p>\n<p>     would   consider   the   fresh   proposals   only   as   per <\/p>\n<p>     coming into effect of the master plan.\n<\/p>\n<p>     10.        It   is   stated   that   as   on   the   date   of <\/p>\n<p>     filing   of   the   affidavit,   no   proposal   was   pending <\/p>\n<p>     with   the   Government.   It   is   further   stated   that <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    109<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     insofar   as   proposals   regarding   English   medium <\/p>\n<p>     schools   are   concerned,   the   same   were   in   cases <\/p>\n<p>     where recommendation was made by District as well <\/p>\n<p>     as   State   level   Committee   and   even   if   by   any   one <\/p>\n<p>     Committee, the same was approved. Insofar as Urdu <\/p>\n<p>     and   other   medium   schools   are   concerned,   the <\/p>\n<p>     proposals   which   were   recommended   by   both   the <\/p>\n<p>     Committees alone were granted permission and rest <\/p>\n<p>     were rejected. As such all the proposals have been <\/p>\n<p>     decided   and   intimation   in   that   behalf   has   been <\/p>\n<p>     given.\n<\/p>\n<p>     11.        It   is   lastly   stated   that   in   batch   of <\/p>\n<p>     Petitions   being   Writ   Petition   No.8992   of   2009 <\/p>\n<p>     along   with   other   Petitions,   at   the   Principal <\/p>\n<p>     Bench,   which   involved   similar   grievance,   came   to <\/p>\n<p>     be disposed of on the basis of the statement made <\/p>\n<p>     on behalf of the Government indicating time frame <\/p>\n<p>     programme for preparation of master plan and grant <\/p>\n<p>     of   permission   thereafter.   It   is   prayed   that <\/p>\n<p>     similar   order   be   passed   in   the   present   batch   of <\/p>\n<p>     Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   110<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     12.        The   learned   Government   Pleader,   besides <\/p>\n<p>     reiterating the above position, has contended that <\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitioners   before   this   Court   are   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions\/associations   registered   as   public <\/p>\n<p>     charitable   trusts.   The   institutions   being   body <\/p>\n<p>     corporate and not a citizen, cannot invoke rights <\/p>\n<p>     guaranteed   under   Article   19   (1)   (g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution.   Further,   there   can   be   no   right   in <\/p>\n<p>     the Petitioners to start a new school as imparting <\/p>\n<p>     education   is   the   obligation   of   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government.   The   Petitioners   would   only   have   a <\/p>\n<p>     statutory right or at best relief for enforcement <\/p>\n<p>     of the executive instructions. It was argued that <\/p>\n<p>     since   imparting   primary   education   was   a <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional obligation of the State, it is open <\/p>\n<p>     to   the   State   to   grant   licence   to   the   deserving <\/p>\n<p>     institutions and the licencee alone can establish <\/p>\n<p>     and   run   the   educational   institution.   He   further <\/p>\n<p>     submitted that in any case exercise of right under <\/p>\n<p>     Article   19(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     subject to law made by the State and in absence of <\/p>\n<p>     such law, the executive instructions issued by the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   111<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     State   as   noted   in   the   Secondary   Schools   Code, <\/p>\n<p>     which   is   compendium   of     executive   instructions <\/p>\n<p>     will have to   govern the field. According to him, <\/p>\n<p>     the decision relied by the Petitioners of the Apex <\/p>\n<p>     Court   in  <a href=\"\/doc\/279061\/\">T.M.A.   Pai   Foundation   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n<p>     Karnataka,<\/a>   reported   in   2002   A.I.R.   S.C.W.   Page <\/p>\n<p>     4957,   were   matters   after   the   grant   of   permission <\/p>\n<p>     by the State and not &#8220;for grant of permission&#8221; as <\/p>\n<p>     such. According to him, opening of new schools in <\/p>\n<p>     absence of perspective plan would result in unfair <\/p>\n<p>     competition   between   the   schools   which   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     unhealthy and affect the interests of the public.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The right to education necessarily includes right <\/p>\n<p>     to   receive   quality   education.   The   purpose   of <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   is   to   detail   the   population   at <\/p>\n<p>     the level of Tandas and villages and then take a <\/p>\n<p>     birds eye view to identify the locality where the <\/p>\n<p>     requirement   of   a   school   is   more   compelling, <\/p>\n<p>     depending   on   factors   such   as   the   population   and <\/p>\n<p>     the   demand   thereof.   For   that   reason,   a   conscious <\/p>\n<p>     decision   has   been   taken   by   the   Government   to <\/p>\n<p>     consider   proposals   for   permission   to   start   new <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   112<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Marathi medium schools in the State only after the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan is finalized.\n<\/p>\n<p>     13.        Both   the   sides   have   relied   on   reported <\/p>\n<p>     decisions   to   buttress   their   arguments.   We   shall <\/p>\n<p>     advert to the same at the appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>     14.        Having   considered   the   rival   submissions, <\/p>\n<p>     we  would  straight  away  deal  with  the argument  of <\/p>\n<p>     the Respondent that same order  be passed in these <\/p>\n<p>     batch of Petitions as in  Writ Petition No.8992 of <\/p>\n<p>     2009,  disposed  of by  the Principal  Bench  on 11th <\/p>\n<p>     January,   2010.   We   think   it   apposite   to   reproduce <\/p>\n<p>     the   said   order   in   its   entirety.   The   same   reads <\/p>\n<p>     thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;1) The   learned   Assistant<br \/>\n                Government Pleader appearing for<br \/>\n                State Government states that the<br \/>\n                State   Government   will   prepare<br \/>\n                and   publish   the   master   plan   in<br \/>\n                relation   the   establishment   of <\/p>\n<p>                new   Primary   and   Secondary<br \/>\n                Schools in Marathi medium within<br \/>\n                a   period   of   six   months   from<br \/>\n                today. He further states that in<br \/>\n                case   of   persons   who   may   be<br \/>\n                interested   in   starting   news<br \/>\n                Primary and Secondary Schools in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  113<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               Marathi   medium   as   per   master<br \/>\n               plan   will   be   free   to   submit<br \/>\n               applications   to   the   State <\/p>\n<p>               Government   and   in   case<br \/>\n               applications   are   submitted   by<br \/>\n               interested persons including the <\/p>\n<p>               petitioners,   those   applications<br \/>\n               will be considered in accordance<br \/>\n               with   law   by   the   authorities   of<br \/>\n               the State Government and orders <\/p>\n<p>               will   be   passed   on   those<br \/>\n               applications as expeditiously as<br \/>\n               possible and in any case within<br \/>\n               a period of four months from the<br \/>\n               date of receipt of applications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               Statements are accepted. In view<br \/>\n               of   these   statements,   in   our <\/p>\n<p>               opinion, no orders are necessary<br \/>\n               in   these   petitions.   Petitions<br \/>\n               are disposed off. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                        Parties   to   act   on   the<br \/>\n               copy   of   this   order   duly<br \/>\n               authenticated         by           the <\/p>\n<p>               Sheristedar\/   Private   Secretary<br \/>\n               of this Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     Certified copy expedited.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     15.       On   plain   reading   of   this   order,   by   no <\/p>\n<p>     stretch  of imagination   it can be  considered  as a <\/p>\n<p>     binding   precedent.   It   merely   proceeds   to   record <\/p>\n<p>     the statement of the Government Pleader. The Court <\/p>\n<p>     without examining any issue on merits, disposed of <\/p>\n<p>     those Petitions. In the present set of Petitions, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    114<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitioners   have   raised   larger   issues <\/p>\n<p>     including   of   constitutional   validity   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     purported policy decision of the State Government <\/p>\n<p>     reflected in the Government Resolution dated 20th <\/p>\n<p>     July, 2009. It is not clear from the above order <\/p>\n<p>     as to whether the pleas taken in the present set <\/p>\n<p>     of   Petitions   were   also   raised   in   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     Petitions.   It   is   noticed   that   none   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     contentions   raised   therein   have     even   been <\/p>\n<p>     adverted  to in  the above  said  order.  Besides,  it <\/p>\n<p>     is   not   the   case   of   the   Respondents   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners   or   any   one   of   them   was   party   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     said proceedings. A priori, there is no substance <\/p>\n<p>     in   the   stand   taken   on   behalf   of   the   Respondents <\/p>\n<p>     that   this   Court   is   obliged   to   dispose   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     present set of Writ Petitions on the basis of or <\/p>\n<p>     account  of the  above  said order  and  pass  similar <\/p>\n<p>     order.   The   fact   that   the   Court   has   recorded <\/p>\n<p>     statement   of   the   Government   Pleader   indicating <\/p>\n<p>     time  frame  for  preparation  of master   plan and  of <\/p>\n<p>     having accepted the same, does not take the matter <\/p>\n<p>     any   further.   The   learned   Government   Pleader <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   115<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     vehemently   submitted   that   having   regard   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     fact   that   the   State   was   in   the   process   of <\/p>\n<p>     formulating the perspective plan very shortly, the <\/p>\n<p>     Court   ought   not   to   entertain   the   present   set   of <\/p>\n<p>     Petitions. We see no merit in the submission in as <\/p>\n<p>     much as we have to consider the larger question as <\/p>\n<p>     to  whether  the  existence   or non existence  of  the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   will   have   any   relevance   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     schools   to   be   established   by   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management on permanent no grant basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     16.        The   moot   question   raised   in   the   present <\/p>\n<p>     set   of   Petitions   is   whether   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   who   intend   to   start   a   primary, <\/p>\n<p>     secondary or higher secondary school, as the case <\/p>\n<p>     may be, without seeking any aid from the State &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     financial   or   otherwise   and   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     in aid basis, have a fundamental right to do so on <\/p>\n<p>     account of Article 19-(1)(g) of the Constitution?\n<\/p>\n<p>     In   the   context   of   this   submission,   the   learned <\/p>\n<p>     Government   Pleader,   in   the   first   place   submitted <\/p>\n<p>     that it is not open to the Petitioners before this <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   116<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Court   who   are   registered   as   public   charitable <\/p>\n<p>     trusts,   to   invoke   Article   19   (1)   (g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   as   these   institutions   are   body <\/p>\n<p>     corporate   and   not   citizens.   In   support   of   this <\/p>\n<p>     submission, he placed reliance on the decision in <\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1799890\/\">State   Trading   Corporation   of   India   Ltd.   vs.   The <\/p>\n<p>     Commercial   Tax   Officer   and   others<\/a>,   reported   in <\/p>\n<p>     A.I.R.   1963   Supreme   Court,   Page   1811  and   placed <\/p>\n<p>     emphasis   on   the   exposition   in   Paragraph   26 <\/p>\n<p>     thereof.   Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the   decision <\/p>\n<p>     in   the   case   the  <a href=\"\/doc\/538117\/\">Tata   Engineering   and   Locomotive  <\/p>\n<p>     Co.   Ltd   vs.   State   of   Bihar,<\/a>   reported   in   A.I.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>     1965   Supreme   Court,   Page   40  with   emphasis   on <\/p>\n<p>     Paragraph   24   and   28.   Reliance   is   then   placed   on <\/p>\n<p>     the decision in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1603336\/\">Dharam Dutt and others <\/p>\n<p>     vs. Union of India and others<\/a>, reported in (2004) <\/p>\n<p>     1   Supreme   Court   Cases,   Page   712  to   contend   that <\/p>\n<p>     Article   19-(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution   cannot   be <\/p>\n<p>     invoked   by   the   association\/private   institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     However,   this   submission   has   not   been   pursued <\/p>\n<p>     further   when   confronted   with   exposition   of   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   117<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Constitution  Bench  of the  Apex  Court  in the <a href=\"\/doc\/947038\/\">Case <\/p>\n<p>     of Excel Wear vs. Union of India and others<\/a>, 1978  <\/p>\n<p>     (4) S.C.C. Page 224, which specifically dealt with <\/p>\n<p>     similar   objection   inter-alia   in   Paragraph   35 <\/p>\n<p>     thereof. Paragraph   35   of   the   reported   case   of <\/p>\n<p>     Excel Wear (supra) in turn refers to the decision <\/p>\n<p>     in  <a href=\"\/doc\/125596\/\">Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. vs. Union of  <\/p>\n<p>     India,<\/a>   reported  in   1972  (2)  Supreme  Court   Cases,  <\/p>\n<p>     Page 288  and  <a href=\"\/doc\/513801\/\">Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of  <\/p>\n<p>     India,<\/a>   reported  in   1970  (1)  Supreme  Court   Cases,  <\/p>\n<p>     Page   248.   Paragraph   35   of   the   said   decision   in <\/p>\n<p>     Excel Wear (supra) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;35.       On   the   basis   of   the<br \/>\n                decision of this Court in State <\/p>\n<p>                of Gujarat V\/ Shri.Ambica Mills<br \/>\n                Ltd., it was urged that even if<br \/>\n                there is a violation by impugned<br \/>\n                law   of   the   fundamental   right <\/p>\n<p>                guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                (g) and not saved by clause (6)<br \/>\n                thereof, the said right has been<br \/>\n                conferred   only   on   the   citizens<br \/>\n                of   India   and   not   upon   the <\/p>\n<p>                corporate bodies like a company.<br \/>\n                Counsel   submitted   that   the<br \/>\n                company cannot challenge the law<br \/>\n                by   a   writ   petition   merely   by<br \/>\n                making   a   shareholder   join   it. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                Nothing of the kind was said by<br \/>\n                Mathew,   J.,   who   spoke   for   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         118<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Court   in   the   above   case.  The<br \/>\n      question which was posed at page<br \/>\n      773   was   whether   a   law   which <\/p>\n<p>      takes   away   or   abridges   the<br \/>\n      fundamental   right   of   citizens<br \/>\n      under Article 19(1)(f) would be <\/p>\n<p>      void and, therefore, non-est as<br \/>\n      respects   non-citizens.   On   a<br \/>\n      consideration   of   a   number   of<br \/>\n      authorities   of   this   Court   the <\/p>\n<p>      principle   which   was   culled   out<br \/>\n      and   applied   in   the   case   of<br \/>\n      Ambica Mills (supra) at page 780<br \/>\n      is in these words :\n<\/p>\n<p>                 For   our   purpose   it   is<br \/>\n      enough to say that if a law is <\/p>\n<p>      otherwise   good   and   does   not<br \/>\n      contravene   any   of   their<br \/>\n      fundamental rights, non-citizens <\/p>\n<p>      cannot   take   advantage   of   the<br \/>\n      voidness   of   the   law   for   the<br \/>\n      reason   that   it   contravenes   the<br \/>\n      fundamental   right   of   citizens <\/p>\n<p>      and  claim  that  there   is no  law<br \/>\n      at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Contrary to the above submission<br \/>\n      there   are   numerous   authorities<br \/>\n      of   this   Court   directly   on   the <\/p>\n<p>      point.   A   reference   to   the   case<br \/>\n      of   Bennett   Coleman   &amp;   Co.   Vs.<br \/>\n      Union of India it was held that<br \/>\n      if   a   shareholder&#8217;s   right   is<br \/>\n      impaired the State cannot impair<br \/>\n      the right of the shareholders as <\/p>\n<p>      well   as of  the  company  and  the<br \/>\n      Court   can   strike   down   the   law<br \/>\n      for   violation   of   a   fundamental<br \/>\n      right   guaranteed   only   to   the<br \/>\n      citizens if the challenge is by<br \/>\n      the   company   as   well   as   the<br \/>\n      shareholder.  Referring   to   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 119<\/span><\/p>\n<p>              Bank Nationalisation case it is<br \/>\n              said at page 773 by Ray, J., as<br \/>\n              he  then  was  :  (SCC  p.806,  para <\/p>\n<p>              22).\n<\/p>\n<p>                         A   shareholder   is <\/p>\n<p>              entitled   to   protection   of<br \/>\n              Article   19.   That   individual<br \/>\n              right  is  not  lost  by  reason  of<br \/>\n              the   fact   that   he   is   a <\/p>\n<p>              shareholder of the company. The<br \/>\n              Bank   Nationalisation   case<br \/>\n              (supra) has established the view<br \/>\n              that   the   fundamental   rights   of<br \/>\n              shareholders as citizens are not <\/p>\n<p>              lost when they associate to form<br \/>\n              a   company.   When   their <\/p>\n<p>              fundamental          rights         as<br \/>\n              shareholders   are   impaired   by<br \/>\n              State   action   their   rights   as <\/p>\n<p>              share-holders are protected. The<br \/>\n              reason is that the shareholders&#8217;<br \/>\n              rights   are   equally   and<br \/>\n              necessarily   affected   if   the <\/p>\n<p>              rights   of   the   company   are<br \/>\n              affected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                    Excel Wear is a partnership<br \/>\n              concern.   The   partners   in   the<br \/>\n              name   of   the   firm   can   challenge <\/p>\n<p>              the validity of the law. In each<br \/>\n              of   other   two   petitions,   as<br \/>\n              already   stated,  a   shareholder<br \/>\n              has   joined   with   the   company   to<br \/>\n              challenge   the   law.   The<br \/>\n              contention   of   Mr.Ramamurthi, <\/p>\n<p>              therefore,  must  be  rejected.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>     17.     Indeed,   in   the   present   case   the <\/p>\n<p>     members\/trustees of the institution are not joined <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  120<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     as parties by name or filed it for enforcement of <\/p>\n<p>     their   fundamental   rights,   but   that   defect   was <\/p>\n<p>     curable   by   carrying   out   appropriate   amendment   in <\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitions.   Realizing   this   position,   the <\/p>\n<p>     argument was not pressed further.\n<\/p>\n<p>     18.       Reverting  to the question,  whether  right <\/p>\n<p>     to start a school without seeking any aid from the <\/p>\n<p>     State- financial or otherwise and on permanent no <\/p>\n<p>     grant basis, is a fundamental right under Article <\/p>\n<p>     19-(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution,   the   issue   is   no <\/p>\n<p>     more   res   integra.   The   same   has   been <\/p>\n<p>     authoritatively   answered     by   the   Constitution <\/p>\n<p>     Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of  T.M.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Pai  Foundation  (supra). The  perspective  regarding <\/p>\n<p>     right to establish an educational institution has <\/p>\n<p>     undergone  a sea  change  after  this  decision.     The <\/p>\n<p>     Court   has   held   that   right   to   establish   an <\/p>\n<p>     educational institution is a fundamental right and <\/p>\n<p>     subject   &#8220;education&#8221;   falls   within   the   expression <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;occupation&#8221;. At the same time, the Apex Court has <\/p>\n<p>     observed   that   fundamental   right   to   establish <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:36 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   121<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     educational   institution   should   not   be   confused <\/p>\n<p>     with   the   right   to   ask   for   recognition   or <\/p>\n<p>     affiliation.   We   shall   deal   with   the   aspect   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition or affiliation a little later.\n<\/p>\n<p>     19.        The   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n<p>     T.M.A.   Pai   (supra)  has   noticed   that   India   is   a <\/p>\n<p>     land   of   diversity   of   different   castes,   peoples, <\/p>\n<p>     communities,  languages,  religions  and culture.  It <\/p>\n<p>     observed that although these people enjoy complete <\/p>\n<p>     political freedom, a vast part of the multitude is <\/p>\n<p>     illiterate   and   lives   below   the   poverty   line.   The <\/p>\n<p>     single   most   powerful   tool   for   the   upliftment   and <\/p>\n<p>     progress of such diverse communities is education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further, the State with its limited resources and <\/p>\n<p>     slow moving machinery, is unable to fully develop <\/p>\n<p>     the   genuis   of   the   Indian   people.   Very   often   the <\/p>\n<p>     impersonal   education   that   is   imparted   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     State,   devoid   of   adequate   material   content   that <\/p>\n<p>     will make the students self-reliant, only succeeds <\/p>\n<p>     in producing potential pen-pushers, as a result of <\/p>\n<p>     which   sufficient   jobs   are   not   available.   Keeping <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  122<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     this in mind, while adjudicating the question, as <\/p>\n<p>     to whether there is fundamental right to establish <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions   and   if   so,   under   which <\/p>\n<p>     provision   of   the   Constitution;   the   Apex   Court <\/p>\n<p>     analyzed the position in the following manner. We <\/p>\n<p>     would   think   it   apposite   to   quote   some   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     extracts   of   the   majority   view   in   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     decision, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;20.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    ig    Article             19(1)(g)<br \/>\n               employs   four   expressions,   viz., <\/p>\n<p>               profession,occupation, trade and<br \/>\n               business.  Their   fields   may<br \/>\n               overlap,   but   each   of   them   does<br \/>\n               have   a   content   of   its   own.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               Education is per se regarded as<br \/>\n               an   activity   that   is   charitable <\/p>\n<p>               in   nature   [See   The   State   of<br \/>\n               Bombay             vs.           R.M.D.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               Chamarbaugwala,   (1957)   SCR   874:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               AIR   (1957)   SC   699].     Education <\/p>\n<p>               has so far not been regarded as<br \/>\n               a trade or business where profit<br \/>\n               is the motive.  Even if there is<br \/>\n               any   doubt   about   whether<br \/>\n               education   is   a   profession   or<br \/>\n               not,   it   does   appear   that <\/p>\n<p>               education   will   fall   within   the<br \/>\n               meaning   of   the   expression<br \/>\n               &#8220;occupation&#8221;.    Article   19(1)(g)<br \/>\n               uses the four expressions so as<br \/>\n               to   cover   all   activities   of   a<br \/>\n               citizen   in   respect   of   which<br \/>\n               income   or   profit   is   generated, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          123<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      and   which   can   consequently   be<br \/>\n      regulated under Article 19(6).In<br \/>\n      Webster&#8217;s           Third        New <\/p>\n<p>      International Dictionary at page<br \/>\n      1650,   &#8220;occupation&#8221;   is,   inter<br \/>\n      alia, defined as &#8220;an activity in <\/p>\n<p>      which one engages&#8221; or &#8220;a craft,<br \/>\n      trade, profession or other means<br \/>\n      of earning a living&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      24. While   the   conclusion   that<br \/>\n      &#8220;occupation&#8221;   comprehends   the<br \/>\n      establishment   of   educational<br \/>\n      institutions   is   correct,   the<br \/>\n      proviso   in   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n<p>      observation   to   the   effect   that<br \/>\n      this   is   so   provided   no <\/p>\n<p>      recognition   is   sought   from   the<br \/>\n      state   or   affiliation   from   the<br \/>\n      concerned   university   is,   with <\/p>\n<p>      the   utmost   respect,   erroneous.<br \/>\n      The   fundamental   right   to<br \/>\n      establish   an   educational<br \/>\n      institution   cannot   be   confused <\/p>\n<p>      with   the   right   to   ask   for<br \/>\n      recognition or affiliation.   The <\/p>\n<p>      exercise   of  a   fundamental   right<br \/>\n      may   be   controlled   in   a   variety<br \/>\n      of ways.  For example, the right<br \/>\n      to carry on a business does not <\/p>\n<p>      entail   the   right   to   carry   on   a<br \/>\n      business   at  a   particular   place.<br \/>\n      The right to carry on a business<br \/>\n      may be subject to licensing laws<br \/>\n      so that a denial of the licence<br \/>\n      prevents   a  person   from   carrying <\/p>\n<p>      on that particular business. The<br \/>\n      question   of   whether   there   is   a<br \/>\n      fundamental right or not  cannot<br \/>\n      be dependent upon whether it can<br \/>\n      be   made   the   subject   matter   of<br \/>\n      controls.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          124<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      25.        The   establishment   and<br \/>\n      running   of   an   educational<br \/>\n      institution where a large number <\/p>\n<p>      of   persons   are   employed   as<br \/>\n      teachers   or   administrative<br \/>\n      staff,   and   an   activity   is <\/p>\n<p>      carried   on   that   results   in   the<br \/>\n      imparting   of   knowledge   to   the<br \/>\n      students,   must   necessarily   be<br \/>\n      regarded   as  an   occupation,   even <\/p>\n<p>      if there is no element of profit<br \/>\n      generation.   It is difficult to<br \/>\n      comprehend   that   education,   per<br \/>\n      se,   will   not   fall   under   any   of<br \/>\n      the  four   expressions   in  Article <\/p>\n<p>      19(1)(g).  &#8220;Occupation&#8221; would be<br \/>\n      an   activity   of   a   person <\/p>\n<p>      undertaken   as   a   means   of<br \/>\n      livelihood or a mission in life.<br \/>\n      The above quoted observations in <\/p>\n<p>      Sodan   Singh&#8217;s   case   correctly<br \/>\n      interpret   the   expression<br \/>\n      &#8220;occupation&#8221;   in   Article   19(1)\n<\/p>\n<p>      (g).\n<\/p>\n<p>      35.         It   appears   to   us   that <\/p>\n<p>      the scheme framed by this Court<br \/>\n      and   thereafter   followed   by   the<br \/>\n      governments  was  one  that   cannot<br \/>\n      be   called   a   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>      restriction   under   Article   19(6)<br \/>\n      of   the   Constitution.  Normally,<br \/>\n      the   reason   for   establishing   an<br \/>\n      educational   institution   is   to<br \/>\n      impart education.The institution<br \/>\n      thus   needs   qualified   and <\/p>\n<p>      experienced   teachers   and   proper<br \/>\n      facilities and equipment, all of<br \/>\n      which          require           capital<br \/>\n      investment.    The   teachers   are<br \/>\n      required   to   be   paid   properly.\n<\/p>\n<p>      As   pointed   out   above,   the<br \/>\n      restrictions   imposed   by   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         125<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      scheme, in Unni Krishnan&#8217;s case,<br \/>\n      made   it   difficult,   if   not<br \/>\n      impossible,   for   the   educational <\/p>\n<p>      institutions to run efficiently.<br \/>\n      Thus,   such   restrictions   cannot<br \/>\n      be   said   to   be   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>      restrictions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      36.        The   private   unaided<br \/>\n      educational   institutions   impart <\/p>\n<p>      education,   and   that   cannot   be<br \/>\n      the   reason   to   take   away   their<br \/>\n      choice   in   matters,   inter   alia,<br \/>\n      of   selection   of   students   and<br \/>\n      fixation   of   fees. Affiliation <\/p>\n<p>      and   recognition   has   to   be<br \/>\n      available   to   every   institution <\/p>\n<p>      that fulfills the conditions for<br \/>\n      grant   of   such   affiliation   and<br \/>\n      recognition.         The   private <\/p>\n<p>      institutions   are   right   in<br \/>\n      submitting   that   it   is   not   open<br \/>\n      to   the   Court   to   insist   that<br \/>\n      statutory   authorities   should <\/p>\n<p>      impose   the   terms   of   the   scheme<br \/>\n      as   a   condition   for   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>      affiliation or recognition; this<br \/>\n      completely   destroys   the<br \/>\n      institutional   autonomy   and   the<br \/>\n      very   objective   of   establishment <\/p>\n<p>      of the institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      38. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;Even   in   the<br \/>\n      decision   in   Unni   Krishnan&#8217;s<br \/>\n      case,   it   has   been   observed   by <\/p>\n<p>      Jeevan   Reddy,   J.,   at   page   749,<br \/>\n      para 194, as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The   hard   reality   that   emerges<br \/>\n      is   that   private   educational<br \/>\n      institutions   are   a  necessity   in<br \/>\n      the present day context.   It is <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         126<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      not possible to do without them<br \/>\n      because   the   Governments   are   in<br \/>\n      no position to meet the demand &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>      particularly   in   the   sector   of<br \/>\n      medical   and   technical   education<br \/>\n      which   call   for   substantial <\/p>\n<p>      outlays.  While education is one<br \/>\n      of   the   most  important   functions<br \/>\n      of   the   Indian   State   it   has   no<br \/>\n      monopoly   therein.     Private <\/p>\n<p>      educational   institutions   &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>      including   minority   educational<br \/>\n      institutions   &#8211;   too   have   a   role<br \/>\n      to play.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      39. That   private   educational<br \/>\n      institutions   are   a   necessity <\/p>\n<p>      becomes   evident   from   the   fact<br \/>\n      that   the   number   of   government-\n<\/p>\n<p>      maintained professional colleges <\/p>\n<p>      has   more   or   less   remained<br \/>\n      stationary,   while   more   private<br \/>\n      institutions           have         been<br \/>\n      established. For example, in the <\/p>\n<p>      State of Karnataka there are 19<br \/>\n      medical   colleges   out   of   which <\/p>\n<p>      there   are   only   4   government-\n<\/p>\n<p>      maintained   medical   colleges.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Similarly,   out   of   14   Dental<br \/>\n      Colleges   in  Karnataka,   only  one <\/p>\n<p>      has   been   established   by   the<br \/>\n      government,   while   in   the   same<br \/>\n      State,   out   of   51   Engineering<br \/>\n      Colleges,   only   12   have   been<br \/>\n      established   by   the   government.<br \/>\n      The   aforesaid   figures   clearly <\/p>\n<p>      indicate   the   important   role<br \/>\n      played   by   private   unaided<br \/>\n      educational   institutions,   both<br \/>\n      minority and non-minority, which<br \/>\n      cater   to   the   needs   of   students<br \/>\n      seeking professional education.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  127<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     20.       While   considering   the   question   regarding <\/p>\n<p>     the   extent   of   Government   Regulations   in   relation <\/p>\n<p>     to   private   institutions   and   in   particular,   in <\/p>\n<p>     respect   of   private   unaided   non-minority <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions,   the   majority   view   has <\/p>\n<p>     observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Private   Unaided   Non-Minority <\/p>\n<p>               Educational Institutions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               48.        Private   education   is <\/p>\n<p>               one   of   the   most   dynamic   and<br \/>\n               fastest   growing   segments   of<br \/>\n               post-secondary   education   at   the<br \/>\n               turn   of   the   twenty-first <\/p>\n<p>               century.     A   combination   of<br \/>\n               unprecedented   demand   for   access <\/p>\n<p>               to   higher   education   and   the<br \/>\n               inability   or   unwillingness   of<br \/>\n               government   to   provide   the<br \/>\n               necessary   support   has   brought <\/p>\n<p>               private higher education to the<br \/>\n               forefront. Private institutions,<br \/>\n               with   a   long   history   in   many<br \/>\n               countries,   are   expanding   in<br \/>\n               scope   and   number,   and   are<br \/>\n               becoming   increasingly   important <\/p>\n<p>               in   parts   of   the   world   that<br \/>\n               relied   almost   entirely   on   the<br \/>\n               public sector.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>               49.      Not   only   has   demand<br \/>\n               overwhelmed   the   ability   of   the<br \/>\n               governments         to       provide <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         128<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      education, there has also been a<br \/>\n      significant   change   in   the   way<br \/>\n      that   higher   education   is <\/p>\n<p>      perceived.   The   idea   of   an<br \/>\n      academic   degree   as   a   &#8220;private<br \/>\n      good&#8221;   that   benefits   the <\/p>\n<p>      individual rather than a &#8220;public<br \/>\n      good&#8221; for society is now widely<br \/>\n      accepted.   The logic of today&#8217;s<br \/>\n      economics   and   an   ideology   of <\/p>\n<p>      privatization   have   contributed<br \/>\n      to   the   resurgence   of   private<br \/>\n      higher   education,   and   the<br \/>\n      establishing   of   private<br \/>\n      institutions where none or very <\/p>\n<p>      few existed before.\n<\/p>\n<p>      50.<br \/>\n           ig  The   right   to   establish<br \/>\n      and administer broadly comprises<br \/>\n      of the following rights:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (a) to admit students:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (b) to set up a reasonable fee<br \/>\n          structure:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (c) to   constitute   a   governing<br \/>\n          body;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (d) to appoint staff (teaching<br \/>\n          and non-teaching); and\n<\/p>\n<p>      (e) to take action if there is<br \/>\n          dereliction of duty on the <\/p>\n<p>          part of any employees<\/p>\n<p>      53. With   regard   to   the   core<br \/>\n      components   of   the   rights   under<br \/>\n      Articles   19   and   26(a),   it   must<br \/>\n      be held that while the state has <\/p>\n<p>      the   right   to   prescribe<br \/>\n      qualifications   necessary   for<br \/>\n      admission,   private   unaided<br \/>\n      colleges have the right to admit<br \/>\n      students   of   their   choice,<br \/>\n      subject   to   an   objective   and<br \/>\n      rational   procedure   of   selection <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         129<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      and   the   compliance   of<br \/>\n      conditions,   if   any,   requiring<br \/>\n      admission of a small percentage <\/p>\n<p>      of students belonging to weaker<br \/>\n      sections   of   the   society   by<br \/>\n      granting   them   freeships   or <\/p>\n<p>      scholarships, if not granted by<br \/>\n      the Government.  Furthermore, in<br \/>\n      setting   up   a   reasonable   fee<br \/>\n      structure,   the   element   of <\/p>\n<p>      profiteering   is   not   as   yet<br \/>\n      accepted   in   Indian   conditions.<br \/>\n      The fee structure must take into<br \/>\n      consideration   the   need   to<br \/>\n      generate   funds   to   be   utilized <\/p>\n<p>      for the betterment and growth of<br \/>\n      the educational institution, the <\/p>\n<p>      betterment of education in that<br \/>\n      institution   and   to   provide<br \/>\n      facilities   necessary   for   the <\/p>\n<p>      benefit of the students.  In any<br \/>\n      event,   a   private   institution<br \/>\n      will   have   the   right   to<br \/>\n      constitute   its   own   governing <\/p>\n<p>      body,   for   which   qualifications<br \/>\n      may   be   prescribed   by   the   state <\/p>\n<p>      or the concerned university.  It<br \/>\n      will,   however,   be   objectionable<br \/>\n      if   the   state   retains   the   power<br \/>\n      to nominate specific individuals <\/p>\n<p>      on   governing   bodies.   Nomination<br \/>\n      by the state, which could be on<br \/>\n      a   political   basis,   will   be   an<br \/>\n      inhibiting   factor   for   private<br \/>\n      enterprise   to   embark   upon   the<br \/>\n      occupation   of   establishing   and <\/p>\n<p>      administering             educational<br \/>\n      institutions. For   the   same<br \/>\n      reasons,   nomination   of   teachers<br \/>\n      either   directly   by   the<br \/>\n      department or through a service<br \/>\n      commission   will   be   an<br \/>\n      unreasonable   inroad   and   an <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                        130<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      unreasonable   restriction   on   the<br \/>\n      autonomy of the private unaided<br \/>\n      educational institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      54.       The   right   to   establish<br \/>\n      an   educational   institution   can <\/p>\n<p>      be   regulated;   but   such<br \/>\n      regulatory   measures   must,   in<br \/>\n      general,   be   to   ensure   the<br \/>\n      maintenance   of   proper   academic <\/p>\n<p>      standards,   atmosphere   and<br \/>\n      infrastructure             (including<br \/>\n      qualified   staff)   and   the<br \/>\n      prevention of mal-administration<br \/>\n      by   those   in   charge   of <\/p>\n<p>      management.     The   fixing   of   a<br \/>\n      rigid   fee   structure,   dictating <\/p>\n<p>      the formation and composition of<br \/>\n      a   governing   body,   compulsory<br \/>\n      nomination of teachers and staff <\/p>\n<p>      for   appointment   or   nominating<br \/>\n      students for admissions would be<br \/>\n      unacceptable restrictions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      55.         The          Constitution<br \/>\n      recognizes   the   right   of   the <\/p>\n<p>      individual   or   religious<br \/>\n      denomination, or a religious or<br \/>\n      linguistic minority to establish<br \/>\n      an educational institution.   If <\/p>\n<p>      aid   or   financial   assistance   is<br \/>\n      not   sought,   then   such<br \/>\n      institution   will   be   a   private<br \/>\n      unaided institution.        Although,<br \/>\n      in   Unni   Krishnan&#8217;s   case,   the<br \/>\n      Court   emphasized   the   important <\/p>\n<p>      role   played   by   private   unaided<br \/>\n      institutions   and   the   need   for<br \/>\n      private   funding,   in   the   scheme<br \/>\n      that   was   framed,   restrictions<br \/>\n      were   placed   on   some   of   the<br \/>\n      important   ingredients   relating<br \/>\n      to   the   functioning   of   an <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          131<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      educational   institution.  There<br \/>\n      can be no doubt that in seeking<br \/>\n      affiliation   or   recognition,   the <\/p>\n<p>      Board   or   the   university   or   the<br \/>\n      affiliating   or   recognizing<br \/>\n      authority   can   lay   down <\/p>\n<p>      conditions   consistent   with   the<br \/>\n      requirement   to   ensure   the<br \/>\n      excellence   of   education.     It<br \/>\n      can, for instance, indicate the <\/p>\n<p>      quality   of   the   teachers   by<br \/>\n      prescribing      the     minimum<br \/>\n      qualifications   that   they   must<br \/>\n      possess,   and   the   courses   of <\/p>\n<p>      study and curricula.          It<br \/>\n                                        can,    <\/p>\n<p>      for   the   same   reasons,   also<br \/>\n      stipulate   the   existence   of <\/p>\n<p>      infrastructure   sufficient   for<br \/>\n      its growth, as a pre-requisite.<br \/>\n      But   the   essence   of   a   private <\/p>\n<p>      educational   institution   is   the<br \/>\n      autonomy   that   the   institution<br \/>\n      must have in its management and <\/p>\n<p>      administration.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                         There,<\/p>\n<p>      necessarily,   has   to   be   a<br \/>\n      difference in the administration <\/p>\n<p>      of   private   unaided   institutions<br \/>\n      and   the   government-aided<br \/>\n      institutions.     Whereas   in   the<br \/>\n      latter case, the Government will <\/p>\n<p>      have   greater   say   in   the<br \/>\n      administration,                including<br \/>\n      admissions   and   fixing   of   fees,<br \/>\n      in   the   case   of   private   unaided<br \/>\n      institutions,   maximum   autonomy<br \/>\n      in the day-to-day administration <\/p>\n<p>      has   to   be   with   the   private<br \/>\n      unaided           institutions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Bureaucratic   or   governmental<br \/>\n      interference              in          the<br \/>\n      administration   of   such   an<br \/>\n      institution   will   undermine   its<br \/>\n      independence.            While         an <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:37 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          132<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      educational institution is not a<br \/>\n      business,   in   order   to   examine<br \/>\n      the degree of independence that <\/p>\n<p>      can   be   given   to   a   recognized<br \/>\n      educational   institution,   like<br \/>\n      any private entity that does not <\/p>\n<p>      seek aid or assistance from the<br \/>\n      Government,   and   that   exists   by<br \/>\n      virtue of the funds generated by<br \/>\n      it,   including   its   loans   or <\/p>\n<p>      borrowings,   it   is   important   to<br \/>\n      note   that   the   essential<br \/>\n      ingredients of the management of<br \/>\n      the   private   institution   include<br \/>\n      the   recruiting   students   and <\/p>\n<p>      staff,   and   the   quantum   of   fee<br \/>\n      that is to be charged.\n<\/p>\n<p>      56.         An              educational<br \/>\n      institution   is   established   for <\/p>\n<p>      the   purpose   of   imparting<br \/>\n      education   of   the   type   made<br \/>\n      available   by   the   institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Different   courses   of   study   are <\/p>\n<p>      usually   taught   by   teachers   who<br \/>\n      have   to   be   recruited   as   per <\/p>\n<p>      qualifications   that   may   be<br \/>\n      prescribed.    It   is   no   secret<br \/>\n      that   better   working   conditions<br \/>\n      will   attract   better   teachers.\n<\/p>\n<p>      More amenities will ensure that<br \/>\n      better   students   seek   admission<br \/>\n      to that institution.  One cannot<br \/>\n      lose   sight   of   the   fact   that<br \/>\n      providing good amenities to the<br \/>\n      students   in   the   form   of <\/p>\n<p>      competent   teaching   faculty   and<br \/>\n      other   infrastructure   costs<br \/>\n      money.      It   has,   therefore,   to<br \/>\n      be   left   to   the   institution,   if<br \/>\n      it   chooses   not   to   seek   any   aid<br \/>\n      from   the   government,   to<br \/>\n      determine the scale of fee that <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          133<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      it can charge from the students.<br \/>\n      One   also   cannot   lose   sight   of<br \/>\n      the   fact   that   we   live   in   a <\/p>\n<p>      competitive   world   today,   where<br \/>\n      professional   education   is   in<br \/>\n      demand.    We   have   been   given   to <\/p>\n<p>      understand   that   a   large   number<br \/>\n      of   professional   and   other<br \/>\n      institutions   have   been   started<br \/>\n      by   private   parties   who   do   not <\/p>\n<p>      seek any governmental aid.  In a<br \/>\n      sense, a prospective student has<br \/>\n      various options open to him\/her<br \/>\n      where,   therefore,   normally<br \/>\n      economic   forces   have   a   role   to <\/p>\n<p>      play.    The   decision   on   the   fee<br \/>\n      to   be   charged   must   necessarily <\/p>\n<p>      be   left   to   the   private<br \/>\n      educational   institution   that<br \/>\n      does   not   seek   or   is   not <\/p>\n<p>      dependent   upon   any   funds   from<br \/>\n      the government.\n<\/p>\n<p>      57.         We,   however,   wish   to <\/p>\n<p>      emphasize one point, and that is<br \/>\n      that inasmuch as the occupation <\/p>\n<p>      of   education   is,   in   a   sense,<br \/>\n      regarded   as   charitable,   the<br \/>\n      government             can       provide<br \/>\n      regulations   that   will   ensure <\/p>\n<p>      excellence   in   education,   while<br \/>\n      forbidding   the   charging   of<br \/>\n      capitation   fee   and   profiteering<br \/>\n      by the institution.           Since   the<br \/>\n      object   of   setting   up   an<br \/>\n      educational   institution   is   by <\/p>\n<p>      definition   &#8220;charitable&#8221;,   it   is<br \/>\n      clear   that   an   educational<br \/>\n      institution cannot charge such a<br \/>\n      fee   as   is   not   required   for   the<br \/>\n      purpose   of   fulfilling   that<br \/>\n      object. To   put   it   differently,<br \/>\n      in   the   establishment   of   an <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          134<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      educational   institution,   the<br \/>\n      object   should   not   be   to   make   a<br \/>\n      profit, inasmuch as education is <\/p>\n<p>      essentially   charitable   in<br \/>\n      nature. There   can,   however,   be<br \/>\n      a   reasonable   revenue   surplus, <\/p>\n<p>      which   may   be   generated   by   the<br \/>\n      educational   institution   for   the<br \/>\n      purpose   of   development   of<br \/>\n      education   and   expansion   of   the <\/p>\n<p>      institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>      61. In   the   case   of   unaided<br \/>\n      private   schools,   maximum<br \/>\n      autonomy   has   to   be   with   the <\/p>\n<p>      management   with   regard   to<br \/>\n      administration,   including   the <\/p>\n<p>      right          of         appointment,<br \/>\n      disciplinary   powers,   admission<br \/>\n      of   students   and   the   fees   to   be <\/p>\n<p>      charged.     At   the   school   level,<br \/>\n      it   is   not   possible   to   grant<br \/>\n      admissions   on   the   basis   of<br \/>\n      merit.      It   is   no   secret   that <\/p>\n<p>      the   examination   results   at   all<br \/>\n      levels   of   unaided   private <\/p>\n<p>      schools,   notwithstanding   the<br \/>\n      stringent   regulations   of   the<br \/>\n      governmental   authorities,   are<br \/>\n      far   superior   to   the   results   of <\/p>\n<p>      the           government-maintained<br \/>\n      schools.  There is no compulsion<br \/>\n      on   students   to   attend   private<br \/>\n      schools.  The rush for admission<br \/>\n      is   occasioned   by   the   standards<br \/>\n      maintained in such schools, and <\/p>\n<p>      recognition   of   the   fact   that<br \/>\n      state-run schools do not provide<br \/>\n      the same standards of education.<br \/>\n      The   State   says   that   it   has   no<br \/>\n      funds   to   establish   institutions<br \/>\n      at the same level of excellence<br \/>\n      as   private   schools.    But   by <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          135<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      curtailing   the   income   of   such<br \/>\n      private   schools,   it   disables<br \/>\n      those schools from affording the <\/p>\n<p>      best   facilities   because   of   a<br \/>\n      lack of funds.  If this lowering<br \/>\n      of standards from excellence to <\/p>\n<p>      a   level   of   mediocrity   is   to   be<br \/>\n      avoided,   the   state   has   to<br \/>\n      provide   the   difference   which,<br \/>\n      therefore,   brings   us   back   in   a <\/p>\n<p>      vicious   circle   to   the   original<br \/>\n      problem, viz., the lack of state <\/p>\n<p>      funds.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 The<br \/>\n                          solution   would<br \/>\n      appear to lie in the States not<br \/>\n      using their scanty resources to <\/p>\n<p>      prop   up   institutions   that   are<br \/>\n      able   to   otherwise   maintain <\/p>\n<p>      themselves   out   of   the   fees<br \/>\n      charged,   but   in   improving   the<br \/>\n      facilities and infrastructure of <\/p>\n<p>      state-run   schools   and   in<br \/>\n      subsidizing the fees payable by <\/p>\n<p>      the students there.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    It is in<\/p>\n<p>      the   interest   of   the   general <\/p>\n<p>      public   that   more   good   quality<br \/>\n      schools   are   established;\n<\/p>\n<p>      autonomy   and   non-regulation   of<br \/>\n      the school administration in the<br \/>\n      right   of   appointment,   admission<br \/>\n      of   the   students   and   the   fee   to <\/p>\n<p>      be charged will ensure that more<br \/>\n      such          institutions            are<br \/>\n      established.  The fear that if a<br \/>\n      private   school   is   allowed   to<br \/>\n      charge   fees   commensurate   with<br \/>\n      the fees affordable, the degrees <\/p>\n<p>      would   be   &#8220;purchasable&#8221;   is   an<br \/>\n      unfounded   one   since   the<br \/>\n      standards   of   education   can   be<br \/>\n      and are controllable through the<br \/>\n      regulations   relating   to<br \/>\n      recognition,   affiliation   and<br \/>\n      common final examinations.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   136<\/span>\n\n\n                 \n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                66.<\/span>\n                      In\n                          the   case   of   private    \n                unaided                  educational \n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                institutions,   the   authority \n                granting   recognition   or \n<\/pre>\n<p>                affiliation   can   certainly   lay <\/p>\n<p>                down conditions for the grant of<br \/>\n                recognition   or   affiliation;\n<\/p>\n<p>                these   conditions   must   pertain<br \/>\n                broadly   to   academic   and <\/p>\n<p>                educational   matters   and   welfare<br \/>\n                of   students   and   teachers     but<br \/>\n                how   the   private   unaided<br \/>\n                institutions   are   to   run   is   a<br \/>\n                matter   of   administration   to   be <\/p>\n<p>                taken care of by the Management<br \/>\n                of those institutions.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                             (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>     21.        The Court formulated question Nos. 10 and <\/p>\n<p>     11   while   dealing   with   these   aspects   and   the <\/p>\n<p>     Majority   Decision   has   answered   the   same   as <\/p>\n<p>     follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;162-M &#8220;Q.10 Whether   the   non-<br \/>\n                minorities   have   the   right   to<br \/>\n                establish   and   administer <\/p>\n<p>                educational   institution   under<br \/>\n                Articles 21 and 29(1) read with<br \/>\n                Articles   14   and   15(1),   in   the<br \/>\n                same   manner   and   to   the   same<br \/>\n                extent as minority institutions? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>\n                and \n\n\n\n\n\n                162-N Q.11       What   is   the \n                meaning   of   the   expressions \n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;Education&#8221;   and   &#8220;Educational<br \/>\n                Institutions&#8221;   in   various<br \/>\n                provisions   of   the   Constitution? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                Is   the   right   to   establish   and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   137<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               administer            educational<br \/>\n               institutions   guaranteed   under<br \/>\n               the Constitution?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               A.   The<br \/>\n                        expression   &#8220;education&#8221;<br \/>\n               in   the   Articles   of   the <\/p>\n<p>               Constitution   means   and   includes<br \/>\n               education at all levels from the<br \/>\n               primary   school   level   upto   the<br \/>\n               post- graduate level.              It <\/p>\n<p>               includes professional education.<br \/>\n               The   expression   &#8220;educational<br \/>\n               institutions&#8221; means institutions<br \/>\n               that   impart   education,   where<br \/>\n               &#8220;education&#8221;   is   as   understood <\/p>\n<p>               hereinabove. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    The   right   to   establish   and<br \/>\n               administer                educational<br \/>\n               institutions is guaranteed under <\/p>\n<p>               the Constitution to all citizens<br \/>\n               under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26,<br \/>\n               and   to   minorities   specifically<br \/>\n               under Article 30.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     All   citizens   have   a   right <\/p>\n<p>               to   establish   and   administer<br \/>\n               educational   institutions   under<br \/>\n               Articles   19(1)(g)   and   26,   but<br \/>\n               this   right   is   subject   to   the <\/p>\n<p>               provisions of Articles 19(6) and<br \/>\n               26(a).          However,   minority<br \/>\n               institutions   will   have   a   right<br \/>\n               to   admit   students   belonging   to<br \/>\n               the   minority   group,   in   the<br \/>\n               manner   as   discussed   in   this <\/p>\n<p>               judgment.&#8221; (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>     22.       Our   attention   was   invited   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     observation   made   by   Justice   S.S.M.   Quadri   as   he <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 138<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     then was, who while concurring with the opinion of <\/p>\n<p>     the Majority Decision as well as,   the concurring <\/p>\n<p>     Judgments given by other learned Judges, proceeded <\/p>\n<p>     to observe thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;238.   Before   I   advert   to   these<br \/>\n              issues, it would be appropriate <\/p>\n<p>              to   record   that   there   was<br \/>\n              unanimity   among   the   learned<br \/>\n              counsel   appearing   for   the<br \/>\n              parties,   institutions,   States<br \/>\n              and   the   learned   Solicitor <\/p>\n<p>              General appearing for the Union<br \/>\n              of   India   on   two   aspects;   the <\/p>\n<p>              first   is   that   all   the   citizens<br \/>\n              have   the   right   to   establish<br \/>\n              educational   institutions   under <\/p>\n<p>              Article 19(1)(g)  and Article  26<br \/>\n              of   the   Constitution  and   the<br \/>\n              second   is   that   the   judgment   of<br \/>\n              the   Constitution   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n<p>              Court   in   Unnikrishnan   J.P.   and<br \/>\n              Ors., v. State of Andhra Pradesh <\/p>\n<p>              and   Ors.   requires   re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              consideration,   though   there   was<br \/>\n              some   debate   with   regard   to   the<br \/>\n              aspects   which   require   re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              241.   Article   19   of   the<br \/>\n              Constitution,   insofar   as   it   is<br \/>\n              relevant   for   the   present<br \/>\n              discussion, is as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;&#8230;. Article 19 confers on all<br \/>\n              citizens   rights   specified   in<br \/>\n              Sub-clauses   (a)   to   (g).   The<br \/>\n              fundamental   rights   enshrined   in<br \/>\n              Sub-clause (g) of Clause (1) of<br \/>\n              Article   19   of   the   Constitution <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   139<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               are to practise any profession,<br \/>\n               or   to   carry   on   any   occupation,<br \/>\n               trade   or   business.  We   are <\/p>\n<p>               concerned here with the right to<br \/>\n               establish                    educational<br \/>\n               institution   to   impart   education <\/p>\n<p>               at   different   levels,   primary,<br \/>\n               secondary,   higher,   technical,<br \/>\n               professional,   etc.   Education   is<br \/>\n               essentially   a   charitable   object <\/p>\n<p>               and   imparting   education   is,   in<br \/>\n               my   view,   a   kind   of   service   to<br \/>\n               the   community,   therefore,   it<br \/>\n               cannot   be   brought   under   &#8216;trade<br \/>\n               or   business&#8217;   nor   can   it   fall <\/p>\n<p>               under                    &#8216;profession&#8217;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               Nevertheless,   having   regard   to <\/p>\n<p>               the width of the meaning of the<br \/>\n               terms &#8216;occupation&#8217; elucidated in<br \/>\n               the   judgment   of   Hon&#8217;ble   the <\/p>\n<p>               Chief Justice, the service which<br \/>\n               a   citizen   desires   to   render   by<br \/>\n               establishing                 educational<br \/>\n               institutions   can   be   read   in <\/p>\n<p>               &#8216;occupation&#8217;.  This   right,   like<br \/>\n               other  rights  enumerated in Sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               clause   (g),   is   controlled   by<br \/>\n               Clause   (6)   of   Article   19.   &#8230;.<br \/>\n               Therefore,   it   may   be   concluded<br \/>\n               that   the   right   of   a   citizen   to <\/p>\n<p>               run educational institutions can<br \/>\n               be   read   into   &#8220;occupation&#8221;<br \/>\n               falling   in   Sub-clause   (g)   of<br \/>\n               Clause   (1)   of   Article   19   which<br \/>\n               would   be   subject   to   the<br \/>\n               discipline   of   Clause   (6) <\/p>\n<p>               thereof.&#8221;  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>     23.       Following  the dictum of the Constitution <\/p>\n<p>     Bench,   in   the   recent   decision   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    140<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/77743693\/\">Modern   Dental   College   and   Research   Centre   and <\/p>\n<p>     others   vs.   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   and   others<\/a>,  <\/p>\n<p>     (2009)   7   Supreme   Court   Cases,   Page   751,  the   two <\/p>\n<p>     Judges Bench of the Apex Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;10. It   was   also   observed,<br \/>\n                following the decision in T.M.A.<br \/>\n                Pai   Foundation   that   greater<br \/>\n                autonomy   must   be   granted   to <\/p>\n<p>                private   unaided   institutions   as<br \/>\n                compared   to   private   aided<br \/>\n                institutions.   The   reason   for <\/p>\n<p>                this   is   obvious.   The   unaided<br \/>\n                institutions   have   to   generate<br \/>\n                their   own   funds   and   hence   they <\/p>\n<p>                must   be   given   more   autonomy   as<br \/>\n                compared   to   aided   institutions,<br \/>\n                so that they can generate these<br \/>\n                funds.   However,   this   does   not <\/p>\n<p>                mean   that   the   private   unaided<br \/>\n                professional   institutions     have <\/p>\n<p>                absolute autonomy in the matter.<br \/>\n                There   can   validly   be   a   certain<br \/>\n                degree of State control over the<br \/>\n                private   unaided   professional <\/p>\n<p>                institution for the reason that<br \/>\n                recognition has to be granted by<br \/>\n                the State authorities and it is<br \/>\n                also   the   duty   of   the   State   to<br \/>\n                see   that   high   standards   of<br \/>\n                education are maintained in all <\/p>\n<p>                professional             institutions.<br \/>\n                However,   to   what   degree   the<br \/>\n                State can interfere with respect<br \/>\n                to   private   unaided   institutions<br \/>\n                is   a   matter   deserving   careful<br \/>\n                consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   141<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">               15.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    In our view, a balance<br \/>\n                                                    has<\/p>\n<p>               hence to be struck because while<br \/>\n               on   the   one   hand,   the   State <\/p>\n<p>               Government does have an element<br \/>\n               of   interest   in   the   private<br \/>\n               unaided                   professional <\/p>\n<p>               institutions, this does not mean<br \/>\n               that   there   will   be   no   autonomy<br \/>\n               to   the   private   unaided<br \/>\n               institutions.  After   all,   the <\/p>\n<p>               private unaided institutions are<br \/>\n               to generate their own resources<br \/>\n               and funds and consequently they<br \/>\n               must have a larger degree of<br \/>\n               autonomy   as   compared   to   the <\/p>\n<p>               aided institutions or the State<br \/>\n               Government institutions. In this <\/p>\n<p>               situation, we are of the opinion<br \/>\n               that   this   Court   must   use   its<br \/>\n               creativity   and   find   out   a <\/p>\n<p>               workable, balanced, via media to<br \/>\n               safeguard   the   interest   of   both<br \/>\n               parties,   namely,   the   State<br \/>\n               Government on the one hand, and <\/p>\n<p>               private   unaided   institutions   on<br \/>\n               the other, and also to keep the <\/p>\n<p>               interest   of   the   students   in<br \/>\n               mind.&#8221;      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>     24.       In   a   recent   decision   of   our   High   Court, <\/p>\n<p>     to which one of us was party (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) <\/p>\n<p>     in <a href=\"\/doc\/1312600\/\">Laxmi Education Society and others vs. State of  <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra   and   others<\/a>,   2010   (1)   All   M.R.   Page  <\/p>\n<p>     680,  a   question   whether   the   school   or   junior <\/p>\n<p>     college   has   a   fundamental   right   to   close   the <\/p>\n<p>     school, came up for consideration. While examining <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:38 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    142<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     that  controversy,  the Court  has  noted  that  it is <\/p>\n<p>     well   established   by   now   that   right   to   start   an <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institution   is   a   fundamental   right <\/p>\n<p>     guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)(g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   of   India.   It   can,   however,   be <\/p>\n<p>     controlled   by   the   State   by   imposing   restrictions <\/p>\n<p>     which  are  in the  interests   of general  public   and <\/p>\n<p>     are   reasonable     restrictions   on   the   exercise   of <\/p>\n<p>     such right.   In that sense, it is not an absolute <\/p>\n<p>     right as such.  In the same Judgment, the Court in <\/p>\n<p>     Paragraph 22, has adverted to the decisions of the <\/p>\n<p>     Apex Court in the case of Cooverjee Bharucha  v\/s.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   Excise   Commissioner   1954   (1)   SCR   873   and <\/p>\n<p>     Narendra   Kumar   &amp;   ors.   v\/s   Union   of   India   &amp;   ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>     1960   (2)   SCR   375  which   have   considered   the <\/p>\n<p>     question  as to  whether  it is  possible  to  provide <\/p>\n<p>     for     total   prohibition  of businesses  within   the <\/p>\n<p>     meaning   of   Article   19(6).     But,   the   Court   noted <\/p>\n<p>     with caution that the greater the restriction, the <\/p>\n<p>     more   the   need   for   strict   scrutiny   by   the   Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     While   applying   the     test   of   reasonableness,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Court   has   to   consider   the   question   in   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   143<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     background   of   the   facts   and   circumstances   under <\/p>\n<p>     which the order was made, taking into account the <\/p>\n<p>     nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied <\/p>\n<p>     by   such   law,   the   ratio   of   the   harm   caused   to <\/p>\n<p>     individual citizens by the proposed remedy, to the <\/p>\n<p>     beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to <\/p>\n<p>     the   general   public.       The   Apex   Court   has   opined <\/p>\n<p>     that it will also be necessary to consider in that <\/p>\n<p>     connection whether a restraint caused   by the law <\/p>\n<p>     is more than was necessary in the interests of the <\/p>\n<p>     general public.   These principles will have to be <\/p>\n<p>     borne   in   mind   while   considering   the   grievance   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitioners   before   this   Court     that   the <\/p>\n<p>     impugned policy of the State Government is in the <\/p>\n<p>     nature   of   total   prohibition   for   starting   and <\/p>\n<p>     carrying   on   occupation   of   establishing   Marathi <\/p>\n<p>     medium schools which inheres  in them as citizens.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We shall deal with the aspect of reasonableness of <\/p>\n<p>     the restriction a little later.\n<\/p>\n<p>     25. The argument of the Respondents that there can <\/p>\n<p>     be no fundamental right to carry on occupation of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    144<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     establishment   of   educational   institution   and   of <\/p>\n<p>     imparting education on the specious plea that the <\/p>\n<p>     said   subject   is   fully   occupied   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional obligation of the State to provide <\/p>\n<p>     free   education   at   least   to   the   children   between <\/p>\n<p>     the age of 6 to 14 years, deserves to be stated to <\/p>\n<p>     be   rejected.   In   the   first   place,   this   argument <\/p>\n<p>     cannot be countenanced after the exposition of the <\/p>\n<p>     Apex   Court   in   TMA   Pai&#8217;s   case   (supra)   that   it   is <\/p>\n<p>     not   the   monopoly   of   the   State   in   this   regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Besides,   from   the   scheme   of   the   constitutional <\/p>\n<p>     provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional obligation of the State to provide <\/p>\n<p>     free and compulsory education to children between <\/p>\n<p>     the age of 6 and 14 years is complete or partial, <\/p>\n<p>     within   the   exclusive   domain   of   the   State.   In <\/p>\n<p>     absence   thereof,   the   fundamental   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   an   educational   institution   can   only   be <\/p>\n<p>     regulated   in   the   interests   of   the   general   public <\/p>\n<p>     and   by   imposing   reasonable   restrictions.     The <\/p>\n<p>     State   can   provide   for   strictest   of   conditions <\/p>\n<p>     which   are   reasonable   restrictions   and   in   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   145<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     interests of the general public for recognition of <\/p>\n<p>     an educational institution,   so as to ensure that <\/p>\n<p>     quality   education   is   imparted   and   further   the <\/p>\n<p>     students and the staff employed by the institution <\/p>\n<p>     are not exploited.\n<\/p>\n<p>     26. Thus,   the   said   constitutional   obligation   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   is   co-extensive   with   the   fundamental <\/p>\n<p>     right   guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)(g)   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   an   educational   institution.   The   latter <\/p>\n<p>     is   supplemental to the primary obligation of the <\/p>\n<p>     State,   subject   to   grant   of   recognition   and\\or <\/p>\n<p>     affiliation on fulfillment of necessary conditions <\/p>\n<p>     to   establish   an   educational   institution.   Indeed, <\/p>\n<p>     matters relating to right to grant of recognition <\/p>\n<p>     and\/or affiliation to such   institutions would be <\/p>\n<p>     covered   within   the   realm   of     statutory   right, <\/p>\n<p>     which, however, will have to be   in the interests <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   general   public   and   by   imposing   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restrictions.   The   fact   that   it   is   the   primary <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional obligation of the State to provide <\/p>\n<p>     education   cannot   whittle   down   the   fundamental <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   146<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     right   of   citizens   to   establish   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   and   more   so   when   such   institution   is <\/p>\n<p>     self sustaining and is not dependent on the aid of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   in   any   manner   including   financial   or <\/p>\n<p>     otherwise   and   makes   adequate   provision   to   ensure <\/p>\n<p>     imparting   of   high   quality   education,   proper <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure  and protect  the service  conditions <\/p>\n<p>     of   its   employees   as   well   as   not   indulge   in <\/p>\n<p>     profiteering and commercialization.\n<\/p>\n<p>     27.        In   the   context   of   this   question,   an <\/p>\n<p>     incidental issue that may arise is, as to whether <\/p>\n<p>     the right to establish an educational institution <\/p>\n<p>     is   available   &#8220;only   to&#8221;   Public   Charitable   Trusts, <\/p>\n<p>     such as the Petitioners herein, on account of Rule <\/p>\n<p>     2.8  of the  Secondary   Schools  Code  or Rule  106(3) <\/p>\n<p>     and Rule 17(2)(b) of the Bombay Primary Education <\/p>\n<p>     Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules <\/p>\n<p>     of   1949).   The   said   provisions   postulate   that <\/p>\n<p>     permission to start new secondary\/higher secondary <\/p>\n<p>     schools   by   the   management   will   be   recommended   on <\/p>\n<p>     fulfillment of conditions amongst others, that the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   147<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     management shall be registered under the Societies <\/p>\n<p>     Registration   Act,   1860   or   under   Bombay   Public <\/p>\n<p>     Trusts   Act,   1950.   In   the   present   case,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners   before   us   are   duly   registered   under <\/p>\n<p>     the   Societies   Registration   Act   as   well   as   Bombay <\/p>\n<p>     Public   Trusts   Act,   1950   as   public   charitable <\/p>\n<p>     trusts. Therefore, it is unnecessary to dilate any <\/p>\n<p>     further   on   this   question.   Suffice   it   to   observe <\/p>\n<p>     that   right   to   establish   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution,   by   now,   has   been   recognized   as   a <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19 <\/p>\n<p>     (1)(g) of the Constitution, which is guaranteed to <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;every citizen&#8221; of India. This view is reinforced <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   opinion   of   the   Apex   Court   noted   in <\/p>\n<p>     Paragraph 162-N that all citizens have a right to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   and   administer   educational   institutions <\/p>\n<p>     under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but that right is <\/p>\n<p>     subject   to   the   provisions   of   Articles   19(6)   and <\/p>\n<p>     26(a). Thus, this right cannot be limited to only <\/p>\n<p>     public   charitable   trusts,   especially   when   the <\/p>\n<p>     private   management   intends   to   establish   the   same <\/p>\n<p>     on permanent no grant basis without taking any aid <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    148<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     from the State Government whatsoever. It would be <\/p>\n<p>     a   different   matter   if   the   proposal   for <\/p>\n<p>     establishment   of   educational   institution   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     private management is on grant in aid basis, which <\/p>\n<p>     institution   would   be   inevitably   funded   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government out of public exchequer. In relation to <\/p>\n<p>     such   institution,   the   Government   may   provide   for <\/p>\n<p>     condition that only public charitable trusts would <\/p>\n<p>     be entitled  to establish  educational  institutions <\/p>\n<p>     on   grant   in   aid   basis.   We,   however,   express   no <\/p>\n<p>     final   opinion   on   that   question   as   it   does   not <\/p>\n<p>     arise for our consideration in the present set of <\/p>\n<p>     cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>     28.        The   other   shade   of     argument   is   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     context   of   Article   21   and   21-A   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution. There can be no debate on the issue <\/p>\n<p>     that right to live, takes within its fold right to <\/p>\n<p>     education and more so quality education. More over <\/p>\n<p>     on   account   of   recently   introduced   Article   21-A, <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   is   duty   bound   to   provide   free   and <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory education to all children of the age of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   149<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by <\/p>\n<p>     law, determine. These Articles are in Part-III of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Constitution.   In   matters   governed   by   Part-IV <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   Constitution,     amongst   others,   Article   41 <\/p>\n<p>     postulates that the State shall, within the limits <\/p>\n<p>     of   its   economic   capacity   and   development,   make <\/p>\n<p>     effective   provision   for   securing   the   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     work,   &#8220;to   education&#8221;   and   to   public   assistance   in <\/p>\n<p>     cases   of   unemployment,   old   age,   sickness   and <\/p>\n<p>     disablement,   and   in   other   cases   of   undeserved <\/p>\n<p>     want.   Besides   Article   41,   Article   45   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   as   substituted   by   86th   Amendment, <\/p>\n<p>     provides that the State shall endeavour to provide <\/p>\n<p>     early   childhood   care   and   education   for   all <\/p>\n<p>     children until they complete the age of six years.\n<\/p>\n<p>     29.        To   effectuate   the   constitutional <\/p>\n<p>     obligation of the State, the Right Of Children To <\/p>\n<p>     Free   And   Compulsory   Education   Act,   2009   has   been <\/p>\n<p>     enacted which has received assent of the President <\/p>\n<p>     on 26th August, 2009. It has come into force with <\/p>\n<p>     effect   from   1st  April,   2010.   We   are   conscious   of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   150<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the  fact  that the  impugned   decision  of  the State <\/p>\n<p>     is in anterior point of time than the coming into <\/p>\n<p>     force of this Act.   Besides, none of the parties <\/p>\n<p>     based   their   arguments   on   the   basis   of   this <\/p>\n<p>     enactment.   But   since   the   said   Act   is   already   in <\/p>\n<p>     place,   all   concerned   would   be   obliged   to   give <\/p>\n<p>     effect   to   the   provisions   thereof   to   examine   the <\/p>\n<p>     issue   regarding   establishing   a   school   or   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition thereof on and from 1st April, 2010. In <\/p>\n<p>     any   case,   we   would   independently   decide   the <\/p>\n<p>     controversy on the basis of provisions applicable <\/p>\n<p>     at the relevant time. We think, that our Judgment <\/p>\n<p>     may not be complete unless we traverse through the <\/p>\n<p>     Scheme of this enactment. The expansive provisions <\/p>\n<p>     of   this   enactment   are   intended   not   only   to <\/p>\n<p>     guarantee   right   to   free   and   compulsory   education <\/p>\n<p>     to   children,   but   intrinsic   regime   envisaged <\/p>\n<p>     therein is of providing right education or quality <\/p>\n<p>     education by providing required infrastructure and <\/p>\n<p>     compliance of specified norms and standards in the <\/p>\n<p>     schools.     This enactment opens up new vistas for <\/p>\n<p>     the  children   of our country.    The aspirations  of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:39 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      151<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     young   people   can   be   accomplished   by   harnessing <\/p>\n<p>     quality   education.       Right   education   alone   can <\/p>\n<p>     empower the children and   make them self reliant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It will enhance their creative skills.   Section 3 <\/p>\n<p>     (1) of the said Act provides that every child of <\/p>\n<p>     the   age   of   6   to   14   years   shall   have   a   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     free   and   compulsory   education   in   a   neighbourhood <\/p>\n<p>     school   till   completion   of   elementary   education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Subsection   (2)   provides   that   no   child   shall   be <\/p>\n<p>     liable   to   pay   any   kind   of   fee   or   charges   or <\/p>\n<p>     expenses   which   may   prevent   him   or   her   from <\/p>\n<p>     pursuing  and completing  the  elementary  education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section-4   provides   for   special   provision   for <\/p>\n<p>     children   not   admitted   to     or   who   have   not <\/p>\n<p>     completed   elementary   education.   Section-5   deals <\/p>\n<p>     with the situation where there is no provision for <\/p>\n<p>     completion of elementary education, a child shall <\/p>\n<p>     have a right to seek transfer to any other school, <\/p>\n<p>     excluding   the   school   specified   in   sub-clauses <\/p>\n<p>     (iii)   and   (iv)   of   clause   (n)   of   section   2,   for <\/p>\n<p>     completing   his   or   her   elementary   education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Chapter-III   provides   for   duties   of   Appropriate <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    152<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Government, Local Authority and Parents. Section 6 <\/p>\n<p>     thereof   imposes   obligation   on   the   Appropriate <\/p>\n<p>     Government   and   Local   Authority   to   establish   a <\/p>\n<p>     school   within   such   areas   or   limits   of <\/p>\n<p>     neighbourhood,   as   may   be   prescribed,   where   it   is <\/p>\n<p>     not so established, within a period of three years <\/p>\n<p>     from the commencement of the Act. The emphasis is <\/p>\n<p>     on   providing   &#8220;neighbourhood   school&#8221;   facility   to <\/p>\n<p>     the children at the Gram Panchayat Level. Chapter <\/p>\n<p>     IV  of the Act  deals  with  the responsibilities  of <\/p>\n<p>     Schools   and   Teachers.   Section   12(1)(c)   read   with <\/p>\n<p>     Section   2(n)(iii)   and   (iv)     mandates   that   every <\/p>\n<p>     recognised   school   imparting   elementary   education, <\/p>\n<p>     even if it is an unaided school not receiving any <\/p>\n<p>     kind   of   aid   or   grants   to   meet   its   expenses   from <\/p>\n<p>     the appropriate Government or the local authority, <\/p>\n<p>     is obliged to admit in Class I, to the extent of <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;at   least   25   per   cent&#8221;   of   the   strength   of   that <\/p>\n<p>     class,   children   belonging   to   weaker   section   and <\/p>\n<p>     disadvantaged   group   in   the   neighbourhood   and <\/p>\n<p>     provide   free   and   compulsory   elementary   education <\/p>\n<p>     till   its   completion.   As   per   the   proviso,   if   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   153<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     School is imparting pre-school education, the same <\/p>\n<p>     regime would apply. By virtue of section 12(2) the <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   school   which   has   not   received   any   land <\/p>\n<p>     building,   equipment   or   other   facilities,   either <\/p>\n<p>     free   of   cost   or   at   concessional   rate,   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     entitled   for   reimbursement   of   the   expenditure <\/p>\n<p>     incurred   by   it   to   the   extent   of   per-child-\n<\/p>\n<p>     expenditure   incurred   by   the   State,   or   the   actual <\/p>\n<p>     amount charged from the child, whichever is less, <\/p>\n<p>     in   such   manner   as   may   be   prescribed.   That <\/p>\n<p>     reimbursement   shall   not   exceed   per-child-\n<\/p>\n<p>     expenditure   incurred   by   a   School   established, <\/p>\n<p>     owned or controlled by the appropriate Government <\/p>\n<p>     or   a   local   authority.   Section   13   in   clear   terms <\/p>\n<p>     envisages   that   no   School   or   person   shall,   while <\/p>\n<p>     admitting a child, collect any capitation fee and <\/p>\n<p>     subject   the   child   or   his   or   her   parents   or <\/p>\n<p>     guardian   to   any   scrutiny   procedure.     Breach   of <\/p>\n<p>     this   stipulation   would   entail   in   punishment   of <\/p>\n<p>     specified   fine.   Section   15   mandates   that   a   child <\/p>\n<p>     shall be admitted in a school at the commencement <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   academic   year   or   within   the   prescribed <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   154<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     extended   period.   Sections   16   and   17   provide   for <\/p>\n<p>     prohibition   of   holding   back   and   expulsion   and   of <\/p>\n<p>     physical   punishment   and   mental   harassment   to <\/p>\n<p>     child.   Section  18 is  of some  significance  in  the <\/p>\n<p>     context of the matter in issue. It postulates that <\/p>\n<p>     after the commencement of the Act, no school other <\/p>\n<p>     than the excepted category, can be established or <\/p>\n<p>     function   without   obtaining   a   certificate   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   from   the   appropriate   authority.   The <\/p>\n<p>     authority   is   obliged   to   issue   the   certificate   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   within   the   prescribed   period <\/p>\n<p>     specifying the conditions therefor, if the school <\/p>\n<p>     fulfills   the   norms   and   standards   specified   under <\/p>\n<p>     Sections 19, 25 read with the Schedule to the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the event of contravention of the conditions of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition, the prescribed authority can withdraw <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   after   giving   an   opportunity   of   being <\/p>\n<p>     heard  to  such school.  The order  of  withdrawal  of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition should provide a direction to transfer <\/p>\n<p>     the   children   studying   in   the   derecognised   school <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   admitted   to   the   specified   neighbourhood <\/p>\n<p>     school.   Upon   withdrawal   of   recognition,   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    155<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     derecognised   School   cannot   continue   to   function, <\/p>\n<p>     failing   which,   is   liable   to   pay   fine   as   per <\/p>\n<p>     Section   19(5).   If   any   person   who   establishes   or <\/p>\n<p>     runs   a   school   without   obtaining   certificate   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition,   or   continues   to   run   a   school   after <\/p>\n<p>     withdrawal   of   recognition   shall   be   liable   to   pay <\/p>\n<p>     fine as specified in Section 18(5). The norms and <\/p>\n<p>     standards for establishing or grant of recognition <\/p>\n<p>     to a school are specified in Section 19 read with <\/p>\n<p>     Schedule   to   the   Act.   Notably,   all   Schools   which <\/p>\n<p>     are established before the commencement of the Act <\/p>\n<p>     in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act  are expected <\/p>\n<p>     to   comply   with   the   specified   norms   and   standards <\/p>\n<p>     within   a   period   of   three   years   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n<p>     such   commencement.   Failure   to   do   so   would <\/p>\n<p>     necessarily   entail   in   derecognition   of   such <\/p>\n<p>     School. Another relevant provision in this Act, to <\/p>\n<p>     answer the controversy on hand, is, Section 22 of <\/p>\n<p>     the Act. It postulates that the School Management <\/p>\n<p>     Committee   constituted   under   Section   21,   shall <\/p>\n<p>     prepare   a   School   Development   Plan   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     prescribed manner. Section 22(2) provides that the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     156<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     School   Development   Plan   so   prepared   shall   be   the   basis <\/p>\n<p>     for the grants to be made by the appropriate Government <\/p>\n<p>     or   local   authority   as   the   case   may   be.     That   plan, <\/p>\n<p>     however, cannot  have any impact on the consideration  of <\/p>\n<p>     application for grant of recognition for establishing an <\/p>\n<p>     unaided School. To ensure that teachers should contribute <\/p>\n<p>     in   imparting   quality   education   in   the   school   itself, <\/p>\n<p>     Section 28 imposes total prohibition on them to engage in <\/p>\n<p>     private   tuition   or   private   teaching   activities.   Chapter <\/p>\n<p>     VI   provides   for   protection   of   rights   of   children.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section-32   which   is   part   of   the   said   Chapter,   provides <\/p>\n<p>     that any person having grievance relating to the right of <\/p>\n<p>     child under this enactment, may make a written complaint <\/p>\n<p>     to the local Authority having jurisdiction, who in turn, <\/p>\n<p>     is   expected   to   decide   it   &#8220;within   three   months&#8221;   after <\/p>\n<p>     affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the <\/p>\n<p>     parties concerned. In addition,  in terms of Section  31, <\/p>\n<p>     the   Commissions   constituted   under   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 can <\/p>\n<p>     monitor   the   child&#8217;s   right   to   education,   so   as   to <\/p>\n<p>     safeguard   the   right   of   the   child   upon   receiving   any <\/p>\n<p>     complaint in that behalf relating to free and compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   157<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     30.        From   the   scheme   of   the   above <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional provisions and of the Act of 2009, <\/p>\n<p>     there is no doubt that the   primary obligation is <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   State   to   provide   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education to children between the age of 6 to 14 <\/p>\n<p>     years and in particular to children who are likely <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   prevented   from   pursuing   and   completing   the <\/p>\n<p>     elementary   education   due   to   inability   to   afford <\/p>\n<p>     fees   or   charges   or   expenses   therefor.   That <\/p>\n<p>     however, does not mean that the fundamental right <\/p>\n<p>     guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article <\/p>\n<p>     19 (1)(g) to establish an educational institution <\/p>\n<p>     would cease to operate or is eclipsed by the said <\/p>\n<p>     obligation   of   the   State.   As   aforesaid,   it   is   an <\/p>\n<p>     activity   to   be   undertaken   by   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions,   which   will   be   supplemental   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     primary   obligation   of   the   State   in   that   behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The State can only regulate the activities of the <\/p>\n<p>     private   institutions   by   imposing   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restrictions   and   in   the   interests   of   the   general <\/p>\n<p>     public.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   158<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     31.         The State to uphold the fundamental right <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   citizens   to   establish   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution and to encourage supplemental activity <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   private   management,   so   as   to   further   the <\/p>\n<p>     object   of   Articles   21,   21-A,   41   and   45   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   and   also   the   Act   of   2009,   ought   to <\/p>\n<p>     allow   the   private   management   to   establish <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions   subject   however,   to <\/p>\n<p>     regulating the quality of education to be imparted <\/p>\n<p>     by   such   institutions,   by   imposing   strict <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   as   precondition   for   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   or   affiliation   and   continuation <\/p>\n<p>     thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>     32.         Besides the obligation of the State, even <\/p>\n<p>     every citizen of India, as per Article 51-A of the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution,   is   expected   to   develop   the <\/p>\n<p>     scientific   temper,   humanism   and   the   spirit   of <\/p>\n<p>     inquiry and reform; and further to strive towards <\/p>\n<p>     excellence   in   all   spheres   of   individual   and <\/p>\n<p>     collective  activity so that the nation constantly <\/p>\n<p>     rises   to   higher   levels   of   endeavour   and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    159<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     achievement;   and   the   duty   of   the   parent   or <\/p>\n<p>     guardian to provide opportunities for education to <\/p>\n<p>     his child or, as the case may be, ward between the <\/p>\n<p>     age   of   six   and   fourteen   years.   In   the   case   of <\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/232115\/\">Avinash   Mehrotra   vs.   Union   of   India   and   others<\/a>,  <\/p>\n<p>     (2009)   6   Supreme   Court   Cases,   Page   398  when   the <\/p>\n<p>     Apex   Court   considered   the   question   about   the <\/p>\n<p>     rights   of   life   and   education   guaranteed   to   all <\/p>\n<p>     school-going   children   under   Article   21   and   21-A, <\/p>\n<p>     the Court revisited the Authorities to opine that <\/p>\n<p>     education   occupies   an   important   place   in <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution and culture. The Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<pre>                \"24.       Education       occupies \n   \n\n\n\n                an       important         place       in \n<\/pre>\n<p>                our   Constitution   and   culture.\n<\/p>\n<p>                There has been emphasis on free<br \/>\n                and   compulsory   education   for <\/p>\n<p>                children   in   this   country   for   a<br \/>\n                long   time.   There   is   a   very<br \/>\n                strong   historical   perspective.<br \/>\n                The   Hunter   Commission   in<br \/>\n                1882-83,   almost   125   years   ago,<br \/>\n                recommended   Universal   Education <\/p>\n<p>                in   India.   It   proposed   to   make<br \/>\n                education   compulsory   for   the<br \/>\n                children.\n<\/p>\n<p>                25.       The   Government   of   India<br \/>\n                Act,   1935   provided   that<br \/>\n                &#8220;education   should   be   made   free <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         160<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      and compulsory for both boys and<br \/>\n      girls.&#8221;       While   debating   in   a<br \/>\n      bill   in   Imperial   Legislation <\/p>\n<p>      Council   in   1911,   Shri   Gopal<br \/>\n      Krishna   Gokhale   strongly<br \/>\n      advocated        that     elementary <\/p>\n<p>      education         should         be<br \/>\n      both compulsory and free.\n<\/p>\n<p>      26.       Our   original   Framers   of <\/p>\n<p>      the Constitution placed free and<br \/>\n      compulsory   education   in   the<br \/>\n      Directive   Principles.   The   un-\n<\/p>\n<p>      amended   Article   45   provided<br \/>\n      that:\n<\/p>\n<p>           &#8220;45. Provision  for free and <\/p>\n<p>      compulsory   education   for<br \/>\n      children.-   The   State   shall<br \/>\n      endeavour   to   provide,   within   a <\/p>\n<p>      period   of   ten   years   from   the<br \/>\n      commencement           of        this<br \/>\n      Constitution,   for   free   and<br \/>\n      compulsory   education   for   all <\/p>\n<p>      children until they complete the<br \/>\n      age of fourteen years.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      27.     The Kothari Commission on<br \/>\n      Education   set   up   by   the<br \/>\n      Government   of   India   in   1966 <\/p>\n<p>      strongly   recommended   free   and<br \/>\n      compulsory   education   for<br \/>\n      children   up   to   14   years.   The<br \/>\n      Commission   observed   that   there<br \/>\n      is no other way for the poor  to<br \/>\n      climb   their   way   out   of   this <\/p>\n<p>      predicament.\n<\/p>\n<pre>      28.   Education     occupies   a \n      sacred     place   within   our \n      Constitution   and   culture. \n<\/pre>\n<p>      Article 21A of the Constitution,<br \/>\n      adopted   in   2002,   codified   this <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:40 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                        161<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Court&#8217;s   holding   in   Unni<br \/>\n      Krishnan, J.P. &amp; Others v. State<br \/>\n      of   Andhra   Pradesh   &amp; <\/p>\n<p>      Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 645, in which<br \/>\n      we   established   a   right   to<br \/>\n      education.     Parliament did not <\/p>\n<p>      merely   affirm   that   right;   the<br \/>\n      Amending Act placed the right to<br \/>\n      education          within          the<br \/>\n      Constitution&#8217;s           set        of <\/p>\n<p>      Fundamental   Rights,   the   most<br \/>\n      cherished   principles   of   our<br \/>\n      society.   As the Court observed<br \/>\n      in   Unni   Krishnan   (supra),   para<br \/>\n      8:\n<\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;8.The immortal Poet Valluvar <\/p>\n<p>      whose   Tirukkural   will   surpass<br \/>\n      all   ages   and   transcend   all<br \/>\n      religious said of  education:\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;Learning is excellence of<br \/>\n      wealth   that   none   destroy;\n<\/p>\n<p>      To   man   nought   else   affords <\/p>\n<p>      reality of joy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      29.       Education   today   remains<br \/>\n      liberation   &#8211;   a   tool   for   the<br \/>\n      betterment   of   our   civil<br \/>\n      institutions,   the   protection   of <\/p>\n<p>      our   civil   liberties,   and   the<br \/>\n      path   to   an   informed   and<br \/>\n      questioning   citizenry.   Then   as<br \/>\n      now,   we   recognize   education&#8217;s<br \/>\n      &#8220;transcendental   importance&#8221;   in<br \/>\n      the lives of individuals and in <\/p>\n<p>      the   very   survival   of   our<br \/>\n      Constitution and Republic.\n<\/p>\n<p>      30.   In   the   years   since   the<br \/>\n      inclusion   of   Article   21A,   we<br \/>\n      have clarified that the right to<br \/>\n      education   attaches   to   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          162<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      individual   as   an   inalienable<br \/>\n      human right. We have traced the<br \/>\n      broad scope of this right in R.\n<\/p>\n<p>      D.   Upadhyay   v.   State   of   A.P.   &amp;<br \/>\n      Ors.   AIR   2006   SC   1946,   holding<br \/>\n      that  the   State   must   provide <\/p>\n<p>      education to all children in all<br \/>\n      places, even in prisons, to the<br \/>\n      children   of   prisoners.  We   have<br \/>\n      also   affirmed   the   inviolability <\/p>\n<p>      of the right to education.\n<\/p>\n<p>      31.   <a href=\"\/doc\/1382544\/\">In   Election   Commission   of<br \/>\n      India   v.   St.   Mary&#8217;s   School   &amp;<br \/>\n      Ors.<\/a>   (2008)   2   SCC   390,   we <\/p>\n<p>      refused   to   allow   the   State   to<br \/>\n      take teachers from the classroom <\/p>\n<p>      to work in polling places. While<br \/>\n      the   democratic   State   has   a<br \/>\n      mandate   to   conduct   elections, <\/p>\n<p>      the   mundane   demands   of<br \/>\n      instruction   superseded   the<br \/>\n      State&#8217;s   need   to   staff   polling<br \/>\n      places.   Indeed,   the   democratic <\/p>\n<p>      State   may   never   reach   its<br \/>\n      greatest   potential   without   a <\/p>\n<p>      citizenry   sufficiently   educated<br \/>\n      to understand civil rights   and<br \/>\n      social   duties,   <a href=\"\/doc\/595099\/\">Bandhua   Mukti<br \/>\n      Morcha v. Union of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a> <\/p>\n<p>      (1997)   10   SCC   549.   These<br \/>\n      conclusions all follow from our<br \/>\n      opinion in Unni Krishnan.\n<\/p>\n<p>      32.  Education remains essential<br \/>\n      to   the   life   of   the   individual, <\/p>\n<p>      as   much   as   health   and   dignity,<br \/>\n      and   the   State   must   provide   it,<br \/>\n      comprehensively   and   completely,<br \/>\n      in order to satisfy its highest<br \/>\n      duty to citizens.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          163<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      33.      Unlike   other   fundamental<br \/>\n      rights,   the   right   to   education<br \/>\n      places a burden not only on the <\/p>\n<p>      State, but also on the parent or<br \/>\n      guardian of every child, and on<br \/>\n      the child herself. Article 21A, <\/p>\n<p>      which   reads   as   follows,   places<br \/>\n      one obligation primarily on the<br \/>\n      State:\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;21A.Right   to   education-The<br \/>\n      State   shall   provide   free   and<br \/>\n      compulsory               education   to<br \/>\n      all   children   of   the   age   of   six<br \/>\n      to fourteen years in such manner <\/p>\n<p>      as   the   State   may,   by   law,<br \/>\n      determine.&#8221; By contrast, Article <\/p>\n<p>      51A(k), which reads as follows,<br \/>\n      places   burden   squarely   on   the<br \/>\n      parents:<\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;51A. Fundamental duties &#8211; it<br \/>\n      shall   be   the   duty   of   every<br \/>\n      citizen of India <\/p>\n<p>            (k)   who   is   the   parent   or <\/p>\n<p>      guardian   to                 provide<br \/>\n      opportunities   for   education   to<br \/>\n      his   child   or,   as   the   case   may<br \/>\n      be, ward between the age of six <\/p>\n<p>      and years.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The   Constitution   directs   both<br \/>\n      burdens to achieve one end: the<br \/>\n      compulsory   education   of<br \/>\n      children, free from the fetters <\/p>\n<p>      of   cost,   parental   obstruction,<br \/>\n      or   State   inaction.   The   two<br \/>\n      articles   also   balance   the<br \/>\n      relative burdens on parents and<br \/>\n      the State. Parents sacrifice for<br \/>\n      the education of their children,<br \/>\n      by   sending   them   to   school   for <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         164<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      hours of the day, but only with<br \/>\n      commensurate   sacrifice   of   the<br \/>\n      State&#8217;s resources. The right to <\/p>\n<p>      education, then, is more than a<br \/>\n      human   or   fundamental   right.   It<br \/>\n      is   a   reciprocal   agreement <\/p>\n<p>      between   the   State   and   the<br \/>\n      family,   and   it   places   an<br \/>\n      affirmative   burden   on   all<br \/>\n      participants   in   our   civil <\/p>\n<p>      society.\n<\/p>\n<p>      34.       This   Court   has   routinely<br \/>\n      held   that   another   fundamental<br \/>\n      right   to   life   encompasses   more <\/p>\n<p>      than   a   breath   and   a   heartbeat.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In reflecting on the meaning of <\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;personal   liberty&#8221;   in   Articles<br \/>\n      19   and   21,   we   have   held   that<br \/>\n      &#8220;that `personal liberty&#8217; is used <\/p>\n<p>      in the article as a compendious<br \/>\n      term   to   include   within   itself<br \/>\n      all   the   varieties   of   rights<br \/>\n      which go to makeup the `personal <\/p>\n<p>      liberties&#8217; of man.&#8221; <a href=\"\/doc\/619152\/\">Kharak Singh<br \/>\n      v. State of U.P. &amp; Ors. AIR<\/a> 1963 <\/p>\n<p>      SC 1295, para 16.  Similarly, we<br \/>\n      must hold that educating a child<br \/>\n      requires more than a teacher and<br \/>\n      a blackboard, or a classroom and <\/p>\n<p>      a   book.   The   right   to   education<br \/>\n      requires that a child study in a<br \/>\n      quality   school,   and   a   quality<br \/>\n      school certainly should pose no<br \/>\n      threat   to   a   child&#8217;s   safety.  We<br \/>\n      reached a  similar   conclusion, <\/p>\n<p>      on  the comprehensive guarantees<br \/>\n      implicit   in   the   right   to<br \/>\n      education, only recently in our<br \/>\n      opinion   in   <a href=\"\/doc\/1299440\/\">Ashoka   Kumar   Thakur<br \/>\n      v. Union of India &amp; Ors.<\/a> (2008)<br \/>\n      6 SCC 1.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          165<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      35.     The Constitution likewise<br \/>\n      provides   meaning   to   the   word<br \/>\n      &#8220;education&#8221;       beyond         its <\/p>\n<p>      dictionary   meaning.       Parents<br \/>\n      should not be compelled to send<br \/>\n      their   children   to   dangerous <\/p>\n<p>      schools,   nor   should   children<br \/>\n      suffer   compulsory   education   in<br \/>\n      unsound buildings.\n<\/p>\n<p>      36.   Likewise,   the   State&#8217;s<br \/>\n      reciprocal   duty   to   parents<br \/>\n      begins   with   the   provision   of   a<br \/>\n      free   education,   and   it   extends<br \/>\n      to the State&#8217;s regulatory power.\n<\/p>\n<p>      No   matter   where   a   family   seeks<br \/>\n      to   educate   its   children,   the <\/p>\n<p>      State must ensure that children<br \/>\n      suffer   no   harm   in   exercising<br \/>\n      their   fundamental   right   and <\/p>\n<p>      civic duty. States thus bear the<br \/>\n      additional burden of regulation,<br \/>\n      ensuring   that   schools   provide<br \/>\n      safe   facilities   as   part   of   a <\/p>\n<p>      compulsory education.\n<\/p>\n<p>      37.     In the instant case, we<br \/>\n      have   no   need   to   sketch   all   the<br \/>\n      contours   of   the   Constitution&#8217;s<br \/>\n      guarantees,   so   we   do   not.   We <\/p>\n<p>      merely   hold   that   the   right   to<br \/>\n      education   incorporates   the<br \/>\n      provision of safe schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>      38.   This Court in Ashoka Kumar<br \/>\n      Thakur&#8217;s   case   (supra)   observed <\/p>\n<p>      as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;482 It has become necessary<br \/>\n      that   the   Government   set   a<br \/>\n      target   within   which   it   must<br \/>\n      fully   implement               Article<br \/>\n      21A   regarding   free   and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   166<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               compulsory     for   the   entire<br \/>\n               country.   The   Government<br \/>\n               suitably           revise          budget <\/p>\n<p>               allocations   for.   The   priorities<br \/>\n               have to be set correctly.   most<br \/>\n               important   fundamental   right   may <\/p>\n<p>               be     21A,   which,   in   the   larger<br \/>\n               interest   of   the               nation,<br \/>\n               must   be   fully   implemented.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Without   Article   21A,   the   other <\/p>\n<p>               fundamental            rights         are<br \/>\n               effectively                     rendered<br \/>\n               meaningless.  Education   stands<br \/>\n               above                other rights,  as<br \/>\n               one&#8217;s   ability   to   enforce   one&#8217;s <\/p>\n<p>               fundamental   rights   flows   from<br \/>\n               one&#8217;s   education.\n<\/p>\n<p>                    ig                       This   is<br \/>\n               ultimately   why   the   judiciary<br \/>\n               must oversee Government spending<br \/>\n               on   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>               education.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>               39.      In  view of  the importance<br \/>\n               of Article 21A, it is imperative <\/p>\n<p>               that   the   education   which   is<br \/>\n               provided  to  children  in    the <\/p>\n<p>               primary schools should be in the<br \/>\n               environment of safety.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                               (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>     33.       Counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioners <\/p>\n<p>     also invited our attention to the decision of the <\/p>\n<p>     Supreme Court  of the United States in the case of <\/p>\n<p>     Brown  vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>     483.   In   that   Case   the   Court   considered   the <\/p>\n<p>     challenge that children of Negro race were denied <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   167<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     admissions   to   the   schools   attended   by   White <\/p>\n<p>     children   under   laws   requiring   or   permitting <\/p>\n<p>     segregation   according   to   race.   The   Court   while <\/p>\n<p>     considering the said question, opined as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Today, education is perhaps the <\/p>\n<p>               most important function of state<br \/>\n               and         local        governments.<br \/>\n               Compulsory   school   attendance<br \/>\n               laws and the great expenditures <\/p>\n<p>               for   education   both   demonstrate<br \/>\n               our   recognition   of   the <\/p>\n<p>               importance   of   education   to   our<br \/>\n               democratic   society.   It   is<br \/>\n               required   in   the   performance   of <\/p>\n<p>               our   most   basic   public<br \/>\n               responsibilities,   even   service<br \/>\n               in   the   armed   forces.   It   is   the<br \/>\n               very   foundation   of   good<br \/>\n               citizenship.   Today   it   is   a <\/p>\n<p>               principal   instrument   in<br \/>\n               awakening  the child to cultural <\/p>\n<p>               values,   in   preparing   him   for<br \/>\n               later professional training, and<br \/>\n               in   helping   him   to   adjust<br \/>\n               normally to his environment.  In <\/p>\n<p>               these days, it is doubtful that<br \/>\n               any   child   may   reasonably   be<br \/>\n               expected   to   succeed   in   life   if<br \/>\n               he is denied the opportunity of<br \/>\n               an   education.   Such   an <\/p>\n<p>               opportunity, where the state has<br \/>\n               undertaken   to   provide   it,   is   a<br \/>\n               right   which   must   be   made<br \/>\n               available   to   all   on   equal<br \/>\n               terms.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    168<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     34.        It   is   unnecessary   to   underscore   the <\/p>\n<p>     significance   of   imparting   quality   education.   At <\/p>\n<p>     the   same   time   it   cannot   be   overlooked   that <\/p>\n<p>     impersonal   education            is   imparted   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions   established   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government or funded by the Government due to the <\/p>\n<p>     limited resources and slow moving machinery of the <\/p>\n<p>     State,   which   fact   has   been   taken   note   of   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     Apex   Court   while   considering   the   case   of  T.M.A.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Pai  (supra), to which  reference  has  been made  in <\/p>\n<p>     the   earlier   part   of   this   Judgment.     Besides, <\/p>\n<p>     considering the inability of the State to provide <\/p>\n<p>     sufficient   number   of   educational   institutions   on <\/p>\n<p>     account of its limited resources and necessity of <\/p>\n<p>     encouraging   private   participation   of   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   to   fulfill   the   constitutional <\/p>\n<p>     objective   of   imparting   education   with   adequate <\/p>\n<p>     material content that will make the students self <\/p>\n<p>     reliant,  coupled   with the  fact  that the  right  to <\/p>\n<p>     establish an educational institution is recognized <\/p>\n<p>     as   a   fundamental   right   within   the   meaning   of <\/p>\n<p>     Article 19(1)(g), we have no hesitation in taking <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   169<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   view   that   such   right   cannot   be   lightly <\/p>\n<p>     interfered with so long as the private educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   are   willing   to   carry   on   their <\/p>\n<p>     activities as per the strict terms and conditions <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   imposed   for   grant   of   recognition   and <\/p>\n<p>     affiliation   and   also   for   continuation   thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Indeed, it ought to be reasonable restrictions and <\/p>\n<p>     in   the   interests   of   the   general   public.  In   the <\/p>\n<p>     case of T.M.A. Pai (supra), in Paragraph 36 of the <\/p>\n<p>     said   decision,   which   we   have   already   reproduced, <\/p>\n<p>     the   Court   plainly   stated   that   if   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   institution   fulfills   the   terms   and <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   for   grant   of   recognition   and <\/p>\n<p>     affiliation   and   abides   by   the   regime   of   no <\/p>\n<p>     profiteering  and commercialization  and secure  the <\/p>\n<p>     service   conditions   of   its   employees   as   also <\/p>\n<p>     provides  mandatory  infrastructure,  there  would be <\/p>\n<p>     hardly   any   option   for   the   State   but   to   grant <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   and   affiliation.   In   that,   the   Apex <\/p>\n<p>     Court   has   observed   that   affiliation   and <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   &#8220;has   to   be   available&#8221;   to   every <\/p>\n<p>     institution that fulfills the conditions for grant <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   170<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     of such affiliation and recognition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     35. Keeping the above principles in mind, we shall <\/p>\n<p>     now   examine   the   sweep   of   the   provisions   or <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   which   obliges   private   management   even <\/p>\n<p>     if   it     intends   to   start   an   unaided   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution, to fulfill as pre-condition.  Insofar <\/p>\n<p>     as   Secondary   or   Higher   Secondary   schools   are <\/p>\n<p>     concerned, the State is relying on the provisions <\/p>\n<p>     of the Secondary Schools Code and  particularly on <\/p>\n<p>     Chapter  II in Section  I thereof  which  deals  with <\/p>\n<p>     starting of a new  school.            For   the   sake   of <\/p>\n<p>     convenience,   we   would   reproduce   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     provisions, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8221; CHAPTER II<\/p>\n<p>               RECOGNITION, ORGANISATION<br \/>\n               AND MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS<\/p>\n<p>               SECTION 1<\/p>\n<p>               CONDITIONS, GRANT, REFUSAL<br \/>\n               AND WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION<\/p>\n<p>               Conformity to Rules<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               1. Schools may be recognised by<br \/>\n               the   Department   provided   they <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          171<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      confirm   to   the   Rules   set   forth<br \/>\n      in this Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      Starting a New School<\/p>\n<p>      2.1.  Application for permission <\/p>\n<p>      to   start   a   new   Secondary<br \/>\n      School\/Higher   Secondary   School<br \/>\n      shall be made in the form given<br \/>\n      in Appendix one to the Education <\/p>\n<p>      Officer   (Secondary)\/Education<br \/>\n      Inspector(Greater               Bombay)<br \/>\n      concerned by registered post, so<br \/>\n      as   to   reach   him   before   30th<br \/>\n      October   in   the   year,   preceding <\/p>\n<p>      the year in which the school is<br \/>\n      proposed   to   be   started.   The <\/p>\n<p>      management          desirous           of<br \/>\n      submitting   an   application   for<br \/>\n      permission to start a school or <\/p>\n<p>      to start a Technical High School<br \/>\n      as   mentioned   in   sub-rule   (2)<br \/>\n      below,   shall   pay   a   fee   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n<p>      1000\/-   to   start   a   school   in <\/p>\n<p>      tribal   area   and   Rs.5000\/-   to<br \/>\n      start school in non-tribal area <\/p>\n<p>      for   each   such   application   into<br \/>\n      Government   Treasury   and   attach<br \/>\n      the   original   challan   to   the<br \/>\n      application.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.2.  Application for permission<br \/>\n      to start a Technical High School<br \/>\n      or   technical   classes   in   school<br \/>\n      imparting   general   education<br \/>\n      shall be made in the form given <\/p>\n<p>      in Appendix one to the Regionals<br \/>\n      Deputy   Director   of   Technical<br \/>\n      Education         concerned         by<br \/>\n      registered post, before the date<br \/>\n      prescribed in Rule 2.1 above.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          172<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      2.3.       Permission   to   start<br \/>\n      English Medium Secondary School\/<br \/>\n      Higher Secondary School shall be <\/p>\n<p>      given on unaided basis.<\/p>\n<p>      2.4.       All   such   applications <\/p>\n<p>      will   be   scrutinized   by   the<br \/>\n      Education                       Officers<br \/>\n      (Secondary)\/Education Inspectors<br \/>\n      (Greater   Mumbai).   These <\/p>\n<p>      applications,   with   remarks,<br \/>\n      shall   be   sent   to   the   concerned<br \/>\n      Deputy Director by the Education<br \/>\n      Officers   (Secondary)\/Education<br \/>\n      Inspectors   (Greater   Mumbai) <\/p>\n<p>      before   30th   November   of   the<br \/>\n      year.ig<br \/>\n      2.5.     Applications   received   by<br \/>\n      the        Education        Officers <\/p>\n<p>      (Secondary)\/Education   Inspector<br \/>\n      (Greater   Mumbai)   will   be   sent<br \/>\n      with remarks to the Director of<br \/>\n      Education   by   the   Deputy <\/p>\n<p>      Directors before 30th December,<\/p>\n<p>      2.6.       Applications   received<br \/>\n      with   the   remarks   by   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Directors   shall   be   sent   with<br \/>\n      remarks to the Government by the <\/p>\n<p>      Director of Education before the<br \/>\n      end   of   January   in   the   year   of<br \/>\n      starting a school.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.7.         The   applications   for<br \/>\n      starting   a   new   school   will   be <\/p>\n<p>      considered   if   the   criterion<br \/>\n      earmarked by the Government from<br \/>\n      time to time for that location.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.8.      Permission  to  start  new<br \/>\n      Secondary\/   Higher   Secondary<br \/>\n      Schools   by   the   Management   will <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         173<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      be recommended on fulfillment of<br \/>\n      the following conditions:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (1)   Management   shall   be<br \/>\n      registered   under   Societies<br \/>\n      Registration   Act,   1860   and <\/p>\n<p>      Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950,<\/p>\n<p>      (2) The fund to the tune of Rs.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thirty Thousand shall be at the <\/p>\n<p>      credit   of   Management   for   the<br \/>\n      preceding   two   years.   The<br \/>\n      Management   wishing   to   start   a<br \/>\n      school   in   the   tribal   area   will<br \/>\n      have a balance of Rs.10000\/- or <\/p>\n<p>      bank guarantee shall be given of<br \/>\n      that amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (3)   The   Audit   Report   of   the<br \/>\n      preceding   two   years   shall   be <\/p>\n<p>      submitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (4) The Management shall have a<br \/>\n      rented   place   or   building   of <\/p>\n<p>      their   own   where   they   want   to<br \/>\n      start a school.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (5)  At least 30% members of the<br \/>\n      Management shall be women.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (6) No member of the Management<br \/>\n      was   earlier   convicted   under<br \/>\n      Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.9       While   recommending   to<br \/>\n      start   a   new   school,   Education <\/p>\n<p>      Officer   (Secondary),   Education<br \/>\n      Inspector   (Greater   Mumbai),<br \/>\n      Divisional   Deputy   Director   of<br \/>\n      Education,   shall   send   the<br \/>\n      recommendations   of   starting<br \/>\n      English medium Secondary\/ Higher<br \/>\n      Secondary  School   on  permanently <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:41 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         174<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      non aided basis separately.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.10.       The   Government   shall <\/p>\n<p>      communicate the decision on the<br \/>\n      application   for   proposing   to<br \/>\n      open a school ordinarily before <\/p>\n<p>      the end of March of the year in<br \/>\n      which the School is proposed to<br \/>\n      be   opened   to   the   Director   of<br \/>\n      Education,   concerned   Deputy <\/p>\n<p>      Director of Education, Education<br \/>\n      Officer   (Secondary)\/   Education<br \/>\n      Inspector  (Greater   Mumbai).   The<br \/>\n      Government   will  communicate   the<br \/>\n      Societies   who   have   applied   for <\/p>\n<p>      starting   a   school,   the<br \/>\n      permission   to   open   a   new <\/p>\n<p>      Secondary\/   Higher   Secondary<br \/>\n      School   before   the   end   of   March<br \/>\n      of the year.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Note: Rule 2.1 to 2.10 shall not<br \/>\n      be   applicable   to   Secondary\/<br \/>\n      Higher   Secondary   Schools   which <\/p>\n<p>      are to be opened during the year<br \/>\n      1994-95.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.11.       The   application   for<br \/>\n      starting a new Secondary\/ Higher<br \/>\n      Secondary   School   will   not   be <\/p>\n<p>      considered        except         the<br \/>\n      applications   obtained   by   the<br \/>\n      procedure   laid   down   for   that<br \/>\n      purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.12.     The   applications   for <\/p>\n<p>      obtaining permission to start a<br \/>\n      Secondary\/   Higher   Secondary<br \/>\n      School as per the procedure laid<br \/>\n      down   for   that   purpose,   will   be<br \/>\n      considered   only   for   that   year,<br \/>\n      the   applications   will   not   be<br \/>\n      considered   next   year   or   they <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   175<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               will   not   be   kept   on   waiting<br \/>\n               list. The application along with<br \/>\n               the   fee   will   automatically <\/p>\n<p>               extinguish.\n<\/p>\n<p>               2.13.       In   no   case   should   the <\/p>\n<p>               School   be   started,   unless   the<br \/>\n               written   previous   permission   of<br \/>\n               the   Government   is   obtained.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Schools   started   without   such <\/p>\n<p>               permission   shall   not  ordinarily<br \/>\n               be   considered   for   permission<br \/>\n               (read recognition).\n<\/p>\n<p>               2.14.      If  permission  has  been <\/p>\n<p>               granted   by   the   Government,   the<br \/>\n               Management   shall   open   Schools <\/p>\n<p>               within   45   days   from   the<br \/>\n               beginning of the ensuing School<br \/>\n               year and inform the Appropriate <\/p>\n<p>               Authority within two weeks from<br \/>\n               the date of opening thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     36.       Significantly,   the   above   Rules   2.1   to <\/p>\n<p>     2.14 have been added by G.R. NO. SED\/SSN\/5393\/3562 <\/p>\n<p>     dated   11.1.1994     and   deal   with   the   subject   of <\/p>\n<p>     permission   to   start   a   new   &#8220;secondary\/higher <\/p>\n<p>     secondary school&#8221;. In other words, the same   have <\/p>\n<p>     been   introduced   much   prior   to   the   exposition   of <\/p>\n<p>     the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai&#8217;s case (supra).  As a <\/p>\n<p>     matter   of fact,  after  the introduction  of Act  of <\/p>\n<p>     2009,   which   not   only   encompasses   the   aspects   of <\/p>\n<p>     right of children to free and compulsory education <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    176<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     but   to   carry   out   the   provisions   of   that   Act,   it <\/p>\n<p>     also elaborately deals with the matters pertaining <\/p>\n<p>     to establishment of School and in particular grant <\/p>\n<p>     of recognition thereof. In that, Section 18 of the <\/p>\n<p>     Act of 2009 provides that no school other than the <\/p>\n<p>     excepted category shall be established or function <\/p>\n<p>     without   obtaining   a   &#8220;certificate   of   recognition&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     to  be given     by the appropriate  Authority.  Thus, <\/p>\n<p>     after   the   commencement   of   that   Act,   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     Management intending to establish a school has to <\/p>\n<p>     make   an   application   to   the   appropriate   Authority <\/p>\n<p>     and till certificate of recognition is granted by <\/p>\n<p>     that   Authority,   it   cannot   establish   or   run   the <\/p>\n<p>     school.   Breach   of   that   condition   would   entail   in <\/p>\n<p>     payment of specified fine to be paid by the person <\/p>\n<p>     or Management who establishes or runs the school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The matters relevant for grant of recognition are <\/p>\n<p>     also   provided   in   Sections   19,   25   read   with <\/p>\n<p>     Schedule   of   that   Act.   The   said   provisions   read <\/p>\n<p>     thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;18.No school to be established without<br \/>\n                obtaining certificate of recognition.-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                        177<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      (1)   No   school,   other   than   a<br \/>\n      school   established,   owned   or<br \/>\n      controlled   by   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>      Government   or   the   local<br \/>\n      authority,   shall,   after   the<br \/>\n      commencement   of   this   Act,   be <\/p>\n<p>      established or function, without<br \/>\n      obtaining   a   certificate   of<br \/>\n      recognition from such authority,<br \/>\n      by making an application in such <\/p>\n<p>      form   and   manner,   as   may   be<br \/>\n      prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)   The   authority   prescribed<br \/>\n      under   sub-section   (1)   shall <\/p>\n<p>      issue   the   certificate   of<br \/>\n      recognition in such form, within <\/p>\n<p>      such period, in such manner, and<br \/>\n      subject   to   such   conditions,   as<br \/>\n      may be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided   that   no   such<br \/>\n      recognition   shall  be   granted   to<br \/>\n      a   school   unless   it   fulfills <\/p>\n<p>      norms   and   standards   specified<br \/>\n      under Section 19.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (3) On the contravention of the<br \/>\n      conditions   of   recognition,   the<br \/>\n      prescribed   authority   shall,   by <\/p>\n<p>      an   order   in   writing,   withdraw<br \/>\n      recognition:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided   that   such   order   shall<br \/>\n      contain a direction as to which<br \/>\n      of the neighbourhood school, the <\/p>\n<p>      children   studying   in   the<br \/>\n      derecognised   school,   shall   be<br \/>\n      admitted:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided   further   that   no<br \/>\n      recognition   shall   be   so<br \/>\n      withdrawn   without   giving   an<br \/>\n      opportunity   of   being   heard   to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         178<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      such school, in such manner, as<br \/>\n      may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (4) With effect from the date of<br \/>\n      withdrawal   of   the   recognition<br \/>\n      under   sub-section   (3),   no   such <\/p>\n<p>      school   shall   continue   to<br \/>\n      function.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (5)   Any   person   who   establishes <\/p>\n<p>      or   runs   a   school   without<br \/>\n      obtaining   certificate   of<br \/>\n      recognition, or continues to run<br \/>\n      a   school   after   withdrawal   of<br \/>\n      recognition,   shall   be  liable   to <\/p>\n<p>      fine   which   may   extend   to   one<br \/>\n      lakh   rupees   and   in   case   of <\/p>\n<p>      continuing   contraventions,   to   a<br \/>\n      fine of ten thousand rupees for<br \/>\n      each   day   during   which   such <\/p>\n<p>      contravention continues.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;19.   Norms   and   standards   for<br \/>\n      school.-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (1)   No   school   shall   be<br \/>\n      established,   or   recognised, <\/p>\n<p>      under   Section   18,   unless   it<br \/>\n      fulfills the norms and standards<br \/>\n      specified in the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)   Where   a   school   established<br \/>\n      before   the   commencement   of   this<br \/>\n      Act   does   not   fulfill   the   norms<br \/>\n      and   standards   specified   in   the<br \/>\n      Schedule, it shall take steps to<br \/>\n      fulfill such norms and standards <\/p>\n<p>      at   its   own   expenses,   within   a<br \/>\n      period   of   three   years   from   the<br \/>\n      date of such commencement.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (3)   Where   a   school   fails   to<br \/>\n      fulfill   the   norms  and  standards<br \/>\n      within   the   period   specified <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         179<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      under   sub-section   (2),   the<br \/>\n      authority   prescribed   under   sub-<br \/>\n      section (1) of Section 18 shall <\/p>\n<p>      withdraw   recognition   granted   to<br \/>\n      such   school   in   the   manner<br \/>\n      specified   under   sub-section   (3) <\/p>\n<p>      thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (4) With effect from the date of<br \/>\n      withdrawal   of   recognition   under <\/p>\n<p>      sub-section (3), no school shall<br \/>\n      continue to function.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (5) Any person who continues to<br \/>\n      run   a   school   after   the <\/p>\n<p>      recognition   is   withdrawn,   shall<br \/>\n      be   liable   to   fine   which   may <\/p>\n<p>      extend to one lakh rupees and in<br \/>\n      case          of           continuing<br \/>\n      contraventions, to a fine of ten <\/p>\n<p>      thousand   rupees   for   each   day<br \/>\n      during   which   such   contravention<br \/>\n      continues.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;25.   Pupil-Teacher   Ratio.-  (1)<br \/>\n      Within six months from the date <\/p>\n<p>      of commencement of this Act, the<br \/>\n      appropriate   Government   and   the<br \/>\n      local   authority   shall   ensure<br \/>\n      that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as <\/p>\n<p>      specified   in   the   Schedule,   is<br \/>\n      maintained in each school.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)   For   the   purpose   of<br \/>\n      maintaining   the   Pupil-Teacher<br \/>\n      Ratio  under   sub-section   (1),   no <\/p>\n<p>      teacher posted in a school shall<br \/>\n      be   made   to   serve   in   any   other<br \/>\n      school or office or deployed for<br \/>\n      any   non-educational   pur0pose,<br \/>\n      other   than   those   specified   in<br \/>\n      Section 27.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                     180<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                        &#8220;THE SCHEDULE<br \/>\n                                      (See Sections 19 and 25)<\/p>\n<p>                       NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR A SCHOOL<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Sr.No.           Item               Norms and Standards\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     1. Number of teachers :<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     (a) For first class to fifth class          Admitted children         Number of teachers\n                                                 Up to Sixty                Two\n                                                 Between sixty-one Three\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                                                 to ninety\n\n                              ig                 Between Ninety-one Four\n                                                 to one hundred and\n                                                 twenty\n                            \n                                                 Between One                  Five\n                                                 hundred and twenty-\n                                                 one to two hundred\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                 Above One hundred Five plus one<\/p>\n<p>                                                 and fifty children           Head-teacher<\/p>\n<p>                                                 Above Two hundred Pupil-Teacher<br \/>\n                                                 children                     Ratio excluding<br \/>\n                                                                              Head-teacher)<\/p>\n<p>                                                                              shall not exceed<br \/>\n                                                                              forty.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (b) For sixth class to eighth          1) At least one teacher per class so that<\/p>\n<p>              class                                there shall be at least one teacher<br \/>\n                                                   each for &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   (i) Science and Mathematics ;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   (ii) Social Studies ;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   (iii) Languages.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              181<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                       2) At least one teacher for every thirty-<br \/>\n                                          five children.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       3) Where admission of children is<\/p>\n<p>                                             above one hundred &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             (i) a full time head-teacher ;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             (ii) part time instructors for &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                                   (A) Art Education ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                                    (B) Health and Physical<br \/>\n                                                       Education ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                                    (C) Work Education.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     2.   Building        All-weather building consisting of &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (i) at least one class-room for every<br \/>\n                         ig         teacher and an office-cum-Head<br \/>\n                                    teacher&#8217;s room ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (ii) barrier-free access ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (iii) separate toilets for boys and girls ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (iv) safe and adequate drinking water<br \/>\n                                     facility to all children ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (v) a kitchen where mid-day meal is<\/p>\n<p>                                     cooked in the school ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (vi) Playground ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                 (vii) arrangements for securing the<\/p>\n<p>                                      school building by boundary wall<br \/>\n                                     or fencing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     3. Minimum number of working (i) two hundred working days for first<br \/>\n          days\/instructional hours in an        class to fifth class ;\n<\/p>\n<p>          academic year                    (ii) two hundred and twenty working<br \/>\n                                               days for sixth class to eighth class ;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                           (iii) eight hundred instructional hours<br \/>\n                                               per academic year for first class to<br \/>\n                                               fifth class ;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        182<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                     (iv) one thousand instructional hours<br \/>\n                                         per academic year for sixth class<br \/>\n                                        to eighth class.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4. Minimum number of working forty-five teaching including<br \/>\n        hours per week for the preparation hours.\n<\/p>\n<p>        teacher.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as<br \/>\n                                     required.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6. Library                      There shall be a library in each school<br \/>\n                                     providing newspaper, magazines and<br \/>\n                                     books on all subjects, including<\/p>\n<p>                                     story-books.<\/p>\n<pre>\n     7. Play material, games and     shall be provided to each class as\n                      \n        sports equipment             required.\"\n                     \n<\/pre>\n<p>     37. In the scheme of the provisions of that Act, <\/p>\n<p>     there is no requirement of taking prior permission <\/p>\n<p>     to start a school as is envisaged by the Rules 2.1 <\/p>\n<p>     to 2.14 of the Secondary Schools Code. Whereas, no <\/p>\n<p>     school   can   be   started   without   a   &#8220;certificate   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition&#8221;   issued   by   the   authority.   In   that <\/p>\n<p>     sense,   the   provisions   in   the   Secondary   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     Code permitting the starting of a school merely on <\/p>\n<p>     fulfillment   of   conditions   specified   in   Rule   2.8 <\/p>\n<p>     thereof, are contrary to the scheme of the Central <\/p>\n<p>     Act   of   2009.   On   the   other   hand,   if   the   private <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                    ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   183<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Management   intending   to   start   an   unaided   School <\/p>\n<p>     not receiving any kind of aid or grants, were to <\/p>\n<p>     fulfill   the   norms   and   standards   specified   in <\/p>\n<p>     Sections 19, 25 read with Schedule of the Act of <\/p>\n<p>     2009,   the   authority   can   have   no   choice   but   to <\/p>\n<p>     grant certificate of recognition to such a school <\/p>\n<p>     within   the     prescribed   period   specifying   the <\/p>\n<p>     conditions therefor.  That is the mandate of Law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     38.    Nevertheless, we shall examine the question <\/p>\n<p>     as   to   whether   the   regime   provided   in   the   above <\/p>\n<p>     said Rules is reasonable one or is in the teeth of <\/p>\n<p>     the   dictum   of   the   Apex   Court   qua   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management   intending   to   establish   an   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     School   not   receiving   any   kind   of   aid   or   grants <\/p>\n<p>     from the Government or local authority.   From the <\/p>\n<p>     Scheme of Chapter II of the Code, it is seen that <\/p>\n<p>     it   pertains   to   recognition,   organization   and <\/p>\n<p>     management of schools.  From the plain language of <\/p>\n<p>     the   said   rules   it   would   apply   to   all   types   of <\/p>\n<p>     schools &#8211; be it  grant in aid schools   or unaided <\/p>\n<p>     schools.     Section 1 thereof   deals with matters <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   184<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     relating   to   conditions,   grant,   refusal   and <\/p>\n<p>     withdrawal of recognition.   Rule 1 is  a general <\/p>\n<p>     provision that the schools would be recognized by <\/p>\n<p>     the department only if they were to conform to the <\/p>\n<p>     rules   specified   in   the   Code.       In   so   far   as <\/p>\n<p>     starting   a   new   school   is   concerned,   the   same   is <\/p>\n<p>     governed by Rules 2.1 to 2.14.  Rule 2.1 envisages <\/p>\n<p>     submission   of   application   by   the   desirous <\/p>\n<p>     management   who   intends   to   start     the   proposed <\/p>\n<p>     school.       The   Application   is   required   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     accompanied   by   specified   fees.       Rule   2.2   is   in <\/p>\n<p>     respect   of   application   for   permission   to   start   a <\/p>\n<p>     technical   High   School   or   technical   classes   in <\/p>\n<p>     school   and   the   authority   designated   to   receive <\/p>\n<p>     such   application   before   the   prescribed   date.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule   2.3   postulates   that   permission   to   start <\/p>\n<p>     English   medium   Secondary   School\/Higher   Secondary <\/p>\n<p>     School shall be given on unaided basis.   This is <\/p>\n<p>     obviously   the   policy   of   the   State   Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule   2.4   contemplates   that   the   applications   so <\/p>\n<p>     submitted by the management within the prescribed <\/p>\n<p>     time will be scrutinized by the Education Officers <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    185<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (Secondary\/Education   Inspectors,   Greater   Mumbai) <\/p>\n<p>     who   in   turn   shall   forward   the   same   with   their <\/p>\n<p>     remarks to the Dy. Director before the prescribed <\/p>\n<p>     date.     Those applications, as per Rule 2.5, are <\/p>\n<p>     required  to be  forwarded   by the Dy.  Directors  to <\/p>\n<p>     the   Director   of   Education   before   the   prescribed <\/p>\n<p>     date;   and   as   per   Rule   2.6,   the   Director   then <\/p>\n<p>     forwards   the   same   with   his   recommendation   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   Government   before   the   prescribed   date.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule  2.7  is of some  significance.     It postulates <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   application   for   starting   a   new   school <\/p>\n<p>     will be considered if the criteria is earmarked by <\/p>\n<p>     the   Government   from   time   to   time   for   that <\/p>\n<p>     location.   It is on account of this provision the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   has   discretion   either   to   grant <\/p>\n<p>     permission   or   to   refuse   the   same   irrespective   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   recommendation   of   the   concerned   officers <\/p>\n<p>     referred   in   Rule   2.4   to   2.6   above.       This   rule <\/p>\n<p>     presupposes existence of a perspective plan on the <\/p>\n<p>     basis   of   which   the   Government   would   take   its <\/p>\n<p>     decision either to grant permission in respect of <\/p>\n<p>     the proposal under consideration or to reject the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   186<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     same, if the location where the private management <\/p>\n<p>     intends to start a new school is not notified  in <\/p>\n<p>     the   perspective   plan.       Admittedly,   as   of   now <\/p>\n<p>     there   is   no   perspective   plan   in   existence.       In <\/p>\n<p>     absence   of   such   perspective   plan,   the   Government <\/p>\n<p>     while   exercising   discretion   available   under   Rule <\/p>\n<p>     2.7   would   naturally   be   obliged   to   examine   the <\/p>\n<p>     concerned   proposal   on   its   own   merits   so   as   to <\/p>\n<p>     ascertain, amongst others, whether starting of new <\/p>\n<p>     school   is   necessary   keeping   in   view   the   local <\/p>\n<p>     population,   need   and   strength   of   students   and <\/p>\n<p>     while   avoiding   unnecessary   concentration   of <\/p>\n<p>     schools   in   an   area   discouraging   unhealthy <\/p>\n<p>     competition.     At   the   same   time   the   State   cannot <\/p>\n<p>     remain  oblivious  of its  constitutional  obligation <\/p>\n<p>     to   provide   education   and     recognizing   rights   of <\/p>\n<p>     children  to free  and  compulsory  education.       The <\/p>\n<p>     fact  that  there  is already   an existing   school  in <\/p>\n<p>     the locality, per se, may not be sufficient ground <\/p>\n<p>     for   rejection   of   the   proposal   unless   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   were   to   also     record   its   subjective <\/p>\n<p>     satisfaction   that   the   new   school   in   the   given <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    187<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     locality   of   the   same   type   would   result   in <\/p>\n<p>     unhealthy   competition   amongst   the   existing <\/p>\n<p>     institutions or result in concentration of schools <\/p>\n<p>     or   that   it   did   not   have   requisite   infrastructure <\/p>\n<p>     and not in a position to secure the interests of <\/p>\n<p>     students and staff. In other words, the existence <\/p>\n<p>     of a school in the locality by itself cannot be a <\/p>\n<p>     decisive     factor.       In   a   given   case,   inspite   of <\/p>\n<p>     existence  of  a  school  in the  locality,   there  may <\/p>\n<p>     be need for an additional school on account of the <\/p>\n<p>     strength of students in the locality.   It is also <\/p>\n<p>     possible   that   the   existing   school   in   the   given <\/p>\n<p>     locality   is   a   non-performing   or   under   performing <\/p>\n<p>     school   in   comparison   to   the   national   or   state <\/p>\n<p>     level   bench   mark   and   is   not   in   a   position   to <\/p>\n<p>     impart   quality   education   as   may   be   evident   from <\/p>\n<p>     its past performance.   To give better opportunity <\/p>\n<p>     to the  children in that locality, it would be in <\/p>\n<p>     the     larger  interest   to allow  another  new  school <\/p>\n<p>     in  the same  locality.      At  any rate,    the State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   cannot   reject   the   proposal   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     private   management   to   start   a   school   on   &#8220;unaided <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   188<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     basis not receiving any kind of aid or grants&#8221;, on <\/p>\n<p>     account   of   existence   of   an   aided   school   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     same locality.     In as much as, Government school <\/p>\n<p>     and   private   unaided   schools   cannot   be   treated   as <\/p>\n<p>     equals.       Necessarily,   therefore,   there   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     no   question   of   unhealthy   competition   between   the <\/p>\n<p>     government   aided   schools   and   private   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     schools.       We   shall   elaborate   on   this   aspect   a <\/p>\n<p>     little   later.       It   would   be   a   different   matter, <\/p>\n<p>     however,   if   there   was   already   an   existing   school <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   &#8220;same   type&#8221;,   namely,   government   aided   or <\/p>\n<p>     private   unaided   educational   institution,   as   the <\/p>\n<p>     case   may   be,   in   the   same   locality,   so   as   to <\/p>\n<p>     justify  its decision of rejection of the proposal <\/p>\n<p>     to start a new school in the same locality.  That <\/p>\n<p>     aspect,   however,     will   have   to   be   decided   or <\/p>\n<p>     examined on case to case basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     39.   Rule   2.8   deals   with   when   the   permission   to <\/p>\n<p>     start   a   new   secondary\/higher   secondary   school   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   management   should   be   recommended.       The <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   to   be   fulfilled   in   that   behalf   have <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:42 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   189<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     been   spelt   out   therein   such   as   availability   of <\/p>\n<p>     sufficient   fund   not   below   the   amount   referred   to <\/p>\n<p>     therein   (i.e.   Rs.   30,000\/-   and   Rs.   10,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>     respectively),   Audit   report   of   the   preceding   two <\/p>\n<p>     years has been submitted, the management must have <\/p>\n<p>     a rented place of building of its own where they <\/p>\n<p>     want   to   start   a   school,   no   member   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     management   was   earlier   convicted   under   Indian <\/p>\n<p>     Penal   Code   and   atleast   30%   members   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     management   shall   be   present.     These   requirements <\/p>\n<p>     are not sufficient in the context of  Sections 19, <\/p>\n<p>     25 read with Schedule of the Act of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     40. Be that as it may, Rule 2.9 is in the nature <\/p>\n<p>     of instructions to the concerned officers who are <\/p>\n<p>     expected   to   send   recommendation   to   start   a   new <\/p>\n<p>     English   medium   Secondary\/Higher   Secondary   school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It   provides   that   recognition   should   be   only   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   non-aided   basis   for   such   schools   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     sent   separately.       Rule   2.10   envisages   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   shall     communicate   its     decision   on <\/p>\n<p>     the the proposals  made  by the private management <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   190<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     to   the   concerned   officers   and   to   the   Societies <\/p>\n<p>     before the specified time.     Rule 2.11 postulates <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   application   for   starting   a   new <\/p>\n<p>     secondary\/higher   secondary   school   will   not   be <\/p>\n<p>     considered except the applications obtained by the <\/p>\n<p>     procedure laid down for that purpose.     Rule 2.12 <\/p>\n<p>     envisages   that   the   applications   for   permission <\/p>\n<p>     shall   be   considered   only   for   that   year   and   will <\/p>\n<p>     not be considered for next year or kept on waiting <\/p>\n<p>     list.   In the present set of cases, it may not be <\/p>\n<p>     necessary   to   consider   the   efficacy   of   this <\/p>\n<p>     provision   as   all   the   applications   for   permission <\/p>\n<p>     have  been  treated  as  rejected  by  one fiat  issued <\/p>\n<p>     by the State Government.   Rule 2.13 provides that <\/p>\n<p>     in   no   case   the   School   shall   be   started   unless <\/p>\n<p>     written   previous   permission   of   the   Government   is <\/p>\n<p>     obtained   and   school   so   started   shall   not <\/p>\n<p>     ordinarily   be   considered   for   permission.       Rule <\/p>\n<p>     2.14   postulates   that   upon   grant   of   permission   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   Government,   the   management   shall   open   the <\/p>\n<p>     school   within   45   days   from   the   beginning   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     ensuing   school   year   and   inform   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   191<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     authority   within   two   weeks   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n<p>     opening thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>     41.        The   primary   Schools   are   governed   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     provisions   of   Bombay   Primary   Education   Act,   1947 <\/p>\n<p>     (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   `Act   of   1947&#8242;).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Besides the said Act, in  exercise of powers under <\/p>\n<p>     Section 63 thereof, the State Government has made <\/p>\n<p>     Rules known as The Bombay Primary Education Rules <\/p>\n<p>     1949   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   &#8216;Rules   of <\/p>\n<p>     1949&#8217;).   We   would   now   traverse   through   the   scheme <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   said   Act   and   the   Rules.   The   relevant <\/p>\n<p>     provisions of the Act of 1947 to decide the matter <\/p>\n<p>     in issue are reproduced thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;2(2)       &#8220;Approved   school&#8221;   means   a   primary<br \/>\n           school maintained by the [State] Government <\/p>\n<p>           or by a school board [or Zilla Parishad] or<br \/>\n           by   an   authorised   municipality   or   which   is<br \/>\n           for the time being recognized as such by a<br \/>\n           school   board  [or  Zilla   Parishad]  or  by  the<br \/>\n           [State]   Government   or   by   an   officer<br \/>\n           authorised by it in this behalf&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;2(15)  &#8220;Primary   Education&#8221;   means   education<br \/>\n           in such subjects and upto such standards as<br \/>\n           may be determined by the [State] Government<br \/>\n           from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               192<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;2(17) &#8220;Primary School&#8221; means a school or a<br \/>\n     part of a school in which primary education <\/p>\n<p>     up to any standard is imparted;\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;25.  It   shall   be   the   duty   of   the   Parishad<br \/>\n     Education   Officer   to   prepare   in   accordance<br \/>\n     with   the   directions   received   from   the<br \/>\n     Director in this behalf a scheme to provide <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory   primary   education   in   such   area<br \/>\n     and for children of such ages and upto such<br \/>\n     standard   and   within   such   period   as   the<br \/>\n     Director may specify. The Parishad Education <\/p>\n<p>     Officer   shall   obtain   the   comments   and<br \/>\n     suggestions   of   the   Zilla   Parishad   upon   the<br \/>\n     scheme   to   be   prepared   by   him   and   shall <\/p>\n<p>     submit   it   together   with   such   comments   and<br \/>\n     suggestions,   if   any,   to   the   Director   who<br \/>\n     shall   forward   it   to   the   State   Government <\/p>\n<p>     with his remarks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;26. (1) An authorised municipality may by a <\/p>\n<p>     resolution declare its intention to provide<br \/>\n     compulsory primary education in the whole or <\/p>\n<p>     any part of its area in the case of children<br \/>\n     of such ages and up to such standard as the<br \/>\n     municipality may decide and shall submit its<br \/>\n     proposals   to   the   State   Government   through <\/p>\n<p>     the Director in the form of a scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (2)   An   authorized   municipality,   if<br \/>\n     called   upon   by   the   State   Government   so   to<br \/>\n     do, shall within a time to be specified by<br \/>\n     the State Government submit to the Director <\/p>\n<p>     a   scheme   to   provide   compulsory   primary<br \/>\n     education   in   such   area   and   in   the   case   of<br \/>\n     children of such ages and upto such standard<br \/>\n     and   within   such   period   as   the   State<br \/>\n     Government may specify.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   193<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;39. Recognition   of   and   grants   to   approved<br \/>\n          schools under private management &#8211; (1) Every<br \/>\n          primary   school   of   her   school   other   than   a <\/p>\n<p>          primary   school   maintained   by   the   [State]<br \/>\n          Government or by a [Zilla Parishad or school<br \/>\n          board]   or   by   an   authorized   municipality <\/p>\n<p>          which fulfills the conditions prescribed in<br \/>\n          this behalf shall be entitled to recognition<br \/>\n          as an approved School.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (2) Such recognition shall be given by<br \/>\n          the  [Zilla  Parishad  or  school   board]  or  by<br \/>\n          the   [State]   Government   or   by   an   officer<br \/>\n          authorized   by   it   in   this   behalf,   and   the <\/p>\n<p>          manner in which grant-in-aid is to be given<br \/>\n          to   such   approved   schools   shall   be   as<br \/>\n          prescribed.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;54.  Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in <\/p>\n<p>          this   Act   the   State   Government   shall   have<br \/>\n          power to give to a Zilla Parishad all such<br \/>\n          directions   as   it   may   consider   necessary   in<br \/>\n          regard to any matter connected with primary <\/p>\n<p>          education   and   the   Zilla   Parishad   shall<br \/>\n          comply with such directions.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          The definition of &#8220;Approved School&#8221; is of some <\/p>\n<p>     significance. It means a primary School maintained <\/p>\n<p>     by  the specified  Authorities   or which  is for  the <\/p>\n<p>     time   being   recognised   as   such   by   the   specified <\/p>\n<p>     Authorities in this behalf. The benefits of being <\/p>\n<p>     an   approved   primary   school   are   spelt   out   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     Rules of 1949 to which we shall make a reference <\/p>\n<p>     little later. By the very nature of provisions in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     194<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   Act   of   1947   read   with   the   Rules   of   1949,   it <\/p>\n<p>     would  appear   that once  a School  is  approved,   the <\/p>\n<p>     appropriate   Authority   becomes   duty   bound       to <\/p>\n<p>     provide   grants   in   aid   to   such   a   School     under <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;private management&#8221;. For that purpose, the Zilla <\/p>\n<p>     Parishad   and   the   Municipality   are   required   to <\/p>\n<p>     prepare   a   scheme   to   provide   compulsory   primary <\/p>\n<p>     education   in   the   identified   areas   to   children   of <\/p>\n<p>     specified   age.   The   Scheme,     as   is   the   case   of <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   prepared   for   the   identification <\/p>\n<p>     of   areas   to   establish   and   allow   Secondary\/Higher <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary Schools in the locality, is with a view <\/p>\n<p>     to ensure proper allocation of public funds to the <\/p>\n<p>     concerned   Schools   having   regard   to   the   need   of <\/p>\n<p>     such   locality,   subject   to   the   availability   of <\/p>\n<p>     finance   with   the   State.   Notably,   Section   39   of <\/p>\n<p>     this   Act   is   the   only   provision   dealing   with <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   of   and   grants   to   approved   primary <\/p>\n<p>     schools   under   &#8220;private   management&#8221;.   It   does   not <\/p>\n<p>     provide   for   taking   prior   permission   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     appropriate   Authority.   That   requirement,   however, <\/p>\n<p>     flows   from   the   provisions   of   the   Rules   of   1949 <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    195<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     which have been amended in the year 1998.  We have <\/p>\n<p>     also   noticed   Section   42   of   this   Act   which <\/p>\n<p>     obligates the State Government to contribute half <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   additional   recurring   and   non-recurring <\/p>\n<p>     annual cost of the scheme sanctioned by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As per Section 54 of the Act, the State Government <\/p>\n<p>     has   power   to   give   to   a   Zilla   Parishad   all   such <\/p>\n<p>     directions as it may consider necessary in regard <\/p>\n<p>     to any matter connected with primary education and <\/p>\n<p>     the   Zilla   Parishad   has   to   comply   with   such <\/p>\n<p>     directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     42. Turning   to   the   Rules   framed   in   exercise   of <\/p>\n<p>     powers under Section 63 of the Act of 1947, we may <\/p>\n<p>     usefully refer to the following Rules:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;2(1)(g) &#8220;Private   School&#8221;   means   a   primary<br \/>\n          school   which   is   maintained   by   an   agency<br \/>\n          other   than   Government   of   District   School<br \/>\n          Board or Authority Municipality and includes<br \/>\n          night   schools   and   other   schools   under<br \/>\n          private   management   similar   to   those   which <\/p>\n<p>          were   recognised   under   the   Grant-in-aid<br \/>\n          Code.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;2(1)(h) &#8220;Public   School&#8221;   means   a   primary<br \/>\n          school   maintained   by   the   Government   or<br \/>\n          District   School   Board   or   Authority<br \/>\n          Municipality, as the case may be.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             196<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;104.     Opening   of   new   primary   schools   by <\/p>\n<p>     the School Board &#8211; (1) [Subject to Rule 33],<br \/>\n     a District School Board shall not open a new<br \/>\n     primary school or take over a private school <\/p>\n<p>     or   incur additional expenditure on primary<br \/>\n     schools   maintained   by   it   without   the<br \/>\n     sanction   of   Government   or   an   officer<br \/>\n     authorised by Government in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (2) Except   as   otherwise   provided   in<br \/>\n     these  rules,   a   Municipal   School   Board  may,<br \/>\n     subject to the provision made in its budget, <\/p>\n<p>     open   new   primary   school   where  necessary   or<br \/>\n     to   take   over   private   school   or   incur<br \/>\n     additional   expenditure   on   primary   schools <\/p>\n<p>     maintained by the authorised municipality.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;104A(i)  &#8220;Private School&#8221; means an approved <\/p>\n<p>     school   referred   to   in   section   39   of   the<br \/>\n     Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     106.   Application   for   permission   to   start   a <\/p>\n<p>     new   private   primary   school-  (1)   Subject   to<br \/>\n     the provisions of this rule, the Department <\/p>\n<p>     shall invite the applications for permission<br \/>\n     to start a new private primary school, from<br \/>\n     the management of Educational Institutions.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (2) Such   application   shall   be   made   by<br \/>\n     the   management   of   Education   Institution   to<br \/>\n     the competent Authority, in the form `A&#8217; set<br \/>\n     out     in   Appendix   `C&#8217;   to   these   rules<br \/>\n     accompanied   by   an   undertaking   in   writing<br \/>\n     that   the   conditions   of   employment   of <\/p>\n<p>     teachers   in   such   private   primary   school<br \/>\n     shall   be   as   near   as   possible   to   those<br \/>\n     specified   in   schedule   `F&#8217;   appended   to<br \/>\n     principal   rules.   Every   such   application<br \/>\n     shall   also   be   accompanied   by   the   scrutiny<br \/>\n     fee prescribed by the Department from  time<br \/>\n     to time.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             197<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          (3) The   application   shall   be<br \/>\n     accompanied with duly atte3sted documents of <\/p>\n<p>     registration   of   the   Management   under   the<br \/>\n     society&#8217;s   Registration   Act,   1860   or   under<br \/>\n     the   Maharashtra   Public   Trusts   Act,   1950 <\/p>\n<p>     under both.\n<\/p>\n<p>           (4) The   application   shall   state   the<br \/>\n     name   and   address   of   the   correspondent,   and <\/p>\n<p>     the   management   shall   report   any   change   in<br \/>\n     this behalf, to the Competent Authority, as<br \/>\n     soon as possible.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;107.      Recognition   of   private   school,   &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1)As   soon   as   the   Department   grants<br \/>\n     permission   to   start   a   new   private   primary <\/p>\n<p>     school,   the   Competent   Authority   shall<br \/>\n     communicate   the   same   to   the   management   of<br \/>\n     the   concerned   Education   Institution.   The <\/p>\n<p>     management on receipt of such communication<br \/>\n     from   the   Competent   Authority,   shall   start<br \/>\n     the   primary   school,   in   the   medium   and   at<br \/>\n     place   mentioned   in   the   communication.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thereafter,   the   management,   which   has   been<br \/>\n     permitted   to   start   a   new   primary   school <\/p>\n<p>     shall  apply   for   recognition   of   that   school<br \/>\n     to   the   Competent   Authority,   which   shall<br \/>\n     arrange for the inspection  of the concerned<br \/>\n     school   and   shall   forward   the   Inspection <\/p>\n<p>     Report to the Education Committee, or School<br \/>\n     Board, as the case may be, together with its<br \/>\n     recommendations relating to the recognition<br \/>\n     of such private primary School.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (2) The   Inspecting   Officer   shall,   in<br \/>\n     making   his   report   to   the   Competent<br \/>\n     Authority,   take   the   following   matters   into<br \/>\n     account, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             198<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (a) Whether there is genuine demand in the<br \/>\n     locality for opening of the proposal primary<br \/>\n     school;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (b) Whether   the   management   is   registered<br \/>\n     under the Society&#8217;s Registration Act, 1860, <\/p>\n<p>     under   the   Maharashtra   Public   Trusts   Act,<br \/>\n     1950, or under both;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (c) Whether the site and premises  occupied <\/p>\n<p>     for the purposes of the school are congenial<br \/>\n     for   educational   purpose   and   are   kept   neat<br \/>\n     and clean;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (d) Whether the staff  engaged  is adequate, <\/p>\n<p>     qualified and competent;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (e) Whether the resources of the school are<br \/>\n     adequate to meet the expenses of the school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (3) The Inspecting Officer shall inter alia<br \/>\n     state in his inspection report &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (a)Whether   the   conditions   on   which   the <\/p>\n<p>     school   is   to   be   recognised   are   duly<br \/>\n     fulfilled;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (b) Whether the attendance of pupils at the<br \/>\n     school is regular and satisfactory;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (c) Whether   the   school   building   is   well<br \/>\n     ventilated   and   provision   is   made   for<br \/>\n     playground, craft shed, work-experience; and<br \/>\n     whether   the   furniture,   books,   educational<br \/>\n     appliance   and   teaching   aids   are   provided<br \/>\n     according to the syllabus.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (d) Whether the arrangement for registering<br \/>\n     the   admission   attendance   and   age   of   the<br \/>\n     pupils are adequate and satisfactory;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (e) Whether   adequate   arrangement   is   made<br \/>\n     for   maintaining   accounts   of   income   and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               199<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     expenditure   upto   date,   and   in   accordance<br \/>\n     with   the   instructions   issued   by   the<br \/>\n     Department from time to time;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (f) Whether the teaching staff is adequate,<br \/>\n     competent, qualified according to the stands <\/p>\n<p>     prescribed   by   the   State   Government   and   is<br \/>\n     not changed unduly, frequently;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (g) Whether   the   pay-scale   and   other <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   of   service   as   laid   down   by   the<br \/>\n     State Government, or as the case may be, by<br \/>\n     the   local  authority   are   made   applicable   to<br \/>\n     the teaching and non-teaching staff engaged<br \/>\n     in the schools;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (h) Whether   the   quality   of   education <\/p>\n<p>     imparted in the school is considered by the<br \/>\n     Inspecting Officer as of desirable standard<br \/>\n     and is proved to be satisfactory;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (i) Whether   the   records   are   properly<br \/>\n     maintained,   and   shall   statistical   returns<br \/>\n     and   formal   certificate   given   by   the   school <\/p>\n<p>     are trust-worthy;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (j) Whether the discipline and behaviour of<br \/>\n     pupils, and in particular, their conduct and<br \/>\n     regularity of attendance are satisfactory;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (k) Whether   the   Head   Master   appointed   by<br \/>\n     the   management   is   qualified,   trained,<br \/>\n     experienced   and   is   proved   to   be   efficient<br \/>\n     for   maintaining   the   school   in   accordance<br \/>\n     with   the   instructions   issued   by   the<br \/>\n     Department from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (4) The   School   Board,   or   as   the   case   may<br \/>\n     be,   the   Education   Committee   shall   consider<br \/>\n     the   inspection   report   and   the<br \/>\n     recommendations   of   the   Competent   Authority<br \/>\n     thereon ordinarily as its next meeting, and<br \/>\n     may,   if   it   is   satisfied   about   the   need   of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               200<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the school in the locality, the standard of<br \/>\n     work in, and the general management of, the<br \/>\n     private school, recognise the private school <\/p>\n<p>     as approval school; and may, if the school<br \/>\n     has   also   applied   for   grant-in-aid,   direct<br \/>\n     that   it   should   be   treated   as   eligible   for <\/p>\n<p>     the grant-in-aid from the primary education<br \/>\n     fund   or   as   case   may   be,   from   the   district<br \/>\n     fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (5) The   School   Board,   or   as   the   case<br \/>\n     may Education Committee may, for reasons to<br \/>\n     be   recorded   in   writing,   reject   an<br \/>\n     application for recognition; and thereupon,<br \/>\n     the   Competent   Authority   shall   forthwith <\/p>\n<p>     communicate   the   decision   to   the   Management<br \/>\n     or Correspondent of the school.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (6) The Management of the School which<br \/>\n     has been refused recognition may, within 45 <\/p>\n<p>     days   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the<br \/>\n     decision,   prefer   an   appeal   to   the   Deputy<br \/>\n     Director   of   the   Education   division<br \/>\n     concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>          (7) Nothing   in   this   rule   shall   be <\/p>\n<p>     deemed to prevent the Management of a school<br \/>\n     which   has   been   refused   recognition   from<br \/>\n     submitting   a  fresh   application   in  the  next<br \/>\n     academic year.\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;108.   Benefits   of   recognition.-(1)   Subject<br \/>\n     to   the   provisions   of   Rule   110   and   111,   a<br \/>\n     private   school,   recognised   as   an   approved<br \/>\n     school, shall unless it denies admission to<br \/>\n     pupils   on   grounds   only   of   religion,   race, <\/p>\n<p>     caste, language of any of them or decline to<br \/>\n     employ   any   person   on   the   ground   only   of<br \/>\n     religion, race and caste or any of them, be<br \/>\n     eligible   for   grant-in-aid   on   application<br \/>\n     made   in   that   behalf   under   Rule   110,   in<br \/>\n     accordance   with   the   rules   hereinafter<br \/>\n     contained.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                       201<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      (2)   Recognition   as   an   approved<br \/>\n      school   shall   also   entitled   the<br \/>\n      management of the school-\n<\/p>\n<p>           (a)   to   present   its   pupils   at<br \/>\n      any   public   examination   conducted<br \/>\n      by the Department;\n<\/p>\n<p>          (b)   to   present   its   pupils   as<br \/>\n      candidates for scholarships and to<br \/>\n      admit scholarship holders; and <\/p>\n<p>          (c)   to   claim   such   other <\/p>\n<p>      benefits   as   Government   may,   from<br \/>\n      time   to   time,   declare   in   this<br \/>\n      behalf.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;109.   Withdrawal   of   recognition   &#8211;<br \/>\n      (1) A private school which is once <\/p>\n<p>      recognised   as   an   approved   school<br \/>\n      shall continue to be so recognised <\/p>\n<p>      unless   its   recognition   is<br \/>\n      withdrawn under sub-rule (2).\n<\/p>\n<p>            (2) Such   recognition   may   at<br \/>\n      any   time   be   withdrawn   by   the<br \/>\n      School   Board,   or   Education<br \/>\n      Committee   on   the   recommendations <\/p>\n<p>      of   the   Inspecting   Officer,   if   any<br \/>\n      of   the   conditions   on   which   the<br \/>\n      school   was   recognised   is   not<br \/>\n      observed   or   if   the   standard   of<br \/>\n      instruction   in     the   school   falls<br \/>\n      materially   below   the   level<br \/>\n      obtaining in public schools or for <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   202<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                other   reasonable   and   sufficient<br \/>\n                cause:\n<\/p>\n<p>                     Provided   that   the   due   warning <\/p>\n<p>                has been given to the managers  of<br \/>\n                the   school   and   that   reasonable<br \/>\n                time   has   been   allowed   to   them   to<br \/>\n                carry   out   the   requirements   of   the <\/p>\n<p>                School   Board   or   Education<br \/>\n                Committee:\n<\/p>\n<p>                      Provided further that a school <\/p>\n<p>                which is aggrieved by the decision<br \/>\n                of   the   School   Board   of   Education <\/p>\n<p>                Committee   withdrawing   recognition<br \/>\n                may submit an appeal to the Deputy <\/p>\n<p>                Director   of   Educational   Division<br \/>\n                concerned   whose   decision   shall   be<br \/>\n                binding.&#8221;<\/p>\n<pre>\n      \n\n\n                [Rule   106   and   Rule   107(1)   is \n   \n\n\n\n                substituted     vide   Government \n                Notification   dated   2nd  March     1998 \n                by   Sections   3   and   4   thereof \n                respectively.]\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>     43. The   above   Rules   have   been   framed   to   further <\/p>\n<p>     the   objective   of   Act   of   1947.   The   definition   of <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Private   School&#8221;   as   envisaged   in   Rule   2(1)(g) <\/p>\n<p>     means  a primary  school  which  is maintained   by an <\/p>\n<p>     agency  other  than  the  Government  or  District<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:43 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   203<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     School   Board   or   Authorised   Municipality   and <\/p>\n<p>     includes   night   schools   and   other   schools   under <\/p>\n<p>     private   management   similar   to   those   which   were <\/p>\n<p>     recognised under the Grand-in-aid Code. The other <\/p>\n<p>     definition   of   &#8220;private   school&#8221;   is   found   in   Rule <\/p>\n<p>     104A (i) of the same Rules. It means an approved <\/p>\n<p>     School referred to in Section 39 of the Act. This <\/p>\n<p>     is   in   contradiction   to   the   meaning   of   &#8220;Public <\/p>\n<p>     School&#8221; given in Rule 2(1)(h). The &#8220;Public School&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     means a primary school maintained by Government or <\/p>\n<p>     District  School  Board  or Authorised  Municipality, <\/p>\n<p>     as  the case  may be.  While  considering  the  scheme <\/p>\n<p>     of the Act and the Rules, we may have to keep in <\/p>\n<p>     mind   the   distinction   between   the   terms   &#8220;Private <\/p>\n<p>     School&#8221;   and   &#8220;Public   School&#8221;.   Both   these   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     may   be   approved   Schools.   The   purpose   of   approval <\/p>\n<p>     is   to   recognise   such   school   being   entitled   for <\/p>\n<p>     grants   in   aid   from   public   funds   to   be   paid   to <\/p>\n<p>     that  school,   as the locality  where  such  a school <\/p>\n<p>     is established, is part of the scheme prepared by <\/p>\n<p>     the   appropriate   Authority.   Therefore,                        the <\/p>\n<p>     distinction between the term &#8220;Approved School&#8221; and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   204<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the &#8220;Recognised School&#8221; will also have to be kept <\/p>\n<p>     in   mind.   In   that,   all   approved   schools   are <\/p>\n<p>     necessarily recognised schools, but all recognised <\/p>\n<p>     schools   need   not   be   approved   schools   so   as   to <\/p>\n<p>     receive grants in aid.\n<\/p>\n<p>     44. Be that as it may, Chapter III of the Rules of <\/p>\n<p>     1949  provide   for the  duties  and functions  of  the <\/p>\n<p>     District   School   Boards,   Authorised   Municipalities <\/p>\n<p>     and   Municipal   School   Boards,   Chairmen   and   Vice-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Chairman.   Part   (a)   of   this   Chapter   deals   with <\/p>\n<p>     aspects relating to primary schools. Chapter III, <\/p>\n<p>     in our view, deals with primary schools under the <\/p>\n<p>     control   of   appropriate   Authority   and   not   in <\/p>\n<p>     relation to private unaided schools in particular.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule  32 in  the said  Chapter  obliges  the District <\/p>\n<p>     School   Board   or   authorised   Municipality   to <\/p>\n<p>     maintain an adequate number of primary schools in <\/p>\n<p>     which   instruction   is   given   through   the   medium   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   local   regional   language.   In   addition   to <\/p>\n<p>     primary   schools   referred   to   in   sub-rule   (1)   of <\/p>\n<p>     this   rule,   a   District   School   Board   or   authorised <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    205<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Municipality   is   expected   to   maintain   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     specified in Clauses (i) to (iii) thereof. Rule 33 <\/p>\n<p>     envisages   that   a   District   School   Board   with   the <\/p>\n<p>     previous   sanction   of   Government   and   a   Municipal <\/p>\n<p>     School Board, so far as the budget provision made <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   authorised   municipality   will   allow,   may, <\/p>\n<p>     wherever   necessary,   open   new   primary   schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thus,   Rule   33   is   in   relation   to   new   Primary <\/p>\n<p>     Schools   to   be   opened   by   the   Board   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     prescribed   manner.   Rule   34   is   of   some   relevance.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It   mandates   that   it   shall   be   the   duty   of   every <\/p>\n<p>     authorised Municipality to make such provision in <\/p>\n<p>     its   budget   as   will   enable   the   &#8220;approved   private <\/p>\n<p>     schools&#8221;   in   its   area   to   receive   grants   at   the <\/p>\n<p>     rates   prescribed   in   Chapter   VII   of   these   rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Notably, the expression used in this provision is <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;approved&#8221;   private   schools   and   not     &#8220;recognised&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     private schools. The other provision in the Rules <\/p>\n<p>     to   which   reference   can   be   made   is   in   Chapter   VI <\/p>\n<p>     which   deals   with   preparation   and   enforcement   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Schemes   of   Compulsion.   Rule   84   deals   with <\/p>\n<p>     preparation of a rough estimate of a scheme by the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     206<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     competent Authority to be later on approved by the <\/p>\n<p>     Government.   Rule   85   deals   with   preparation   of <\/p>\n<p>     detailed   scheme   by   the   competent   Authority.   Rule <\/p>\n<p>     89   which   follows   the   rules   for   preparation   of <\/p>\n<p>     schemes provides that before a detailed scheme is <\/p>\n<p>     prepared,   the   School   Board   shall   on   the <\/p>\n<p>     recommendation  of the Administrative  Officer,  fix <\/p>\n<p>     the   maximum   distance   measured   according   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     nearest   road   between   an   approved   school   and   the <\/p>\n<p>     residence if a child for purposes of clause (c) of <\/p>\n<p>     Section   33   of   the   Act.   It   further   provides   that <\/p>\n<p>     such distance shall not ordinarily exceed one mile <\/p>\n<p>     and may be different for different localities and <\/p>\n<p>     may   be   less   than   a   mile   in   the   case   of   villages <\/p>\n<p>     where   communications   are   specially   difficult <\/p>\n<p>     throughout   the   year.   Once   again,   the   primary <\/p>\n<p>     school   referred   to   in   the   context   of   distance <\/p>\n<p>     between   two   such   schools   is   of     an   &#8220;approved <\/p>\n<p>     school&#8221;. Obviously, this provision is an enabling <\/p>\n<p>     provision to not only keep in mind that there is <\/p>\n<p>     no   crowding   of   schools   but   at   the   same   time,   to <\/p>\n<p>     identify the localities where it is necessary to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    207<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     establish   a   School   either   managed   by   the   local <\/p>\n<p>     Authority or on grant in aid, to achieve the objective <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   enactment   of   providing   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education through primary school in the neighbourhood, <\/p>\n<p>     while   preparation   of   detailed   schemes,     subject   to <\/p>\n<p>     availability   of   funds.   This   provision   cannot   be <\/p>\n<p>     pressed   into   service   against   the   private   management <\/p>\n<p>     intending   to   establish   a   primary   School   on   permanent <\/p>\n<p>     no-grant   basis   subject   to   fulfilling   the   conditions <\/p>\n<p>     for grant of recognition thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>     45. The crucial chapter in these Rules is Chapter VII, <\/p>\n<p>     which   specifically   deal   with   the   &#8220;approved   schools&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the scheme of Chapter VII,   conjointly read with <\/p>\n<p>     other   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules,   it   would <\/p>\n<p>     appear that grant of recognition  to a primary private <\/p>\n<p>     school permits the private management to establish the <\/p>\n<p>     school;     but   recognition   to   the   school   as   approved <\/p>\n<p>     School   would   have   different   connotation,   indicating <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   private   management   is   not   only   allowed   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   and   run   a   Primary   Private   School   but   the <\/p>\n<p>     School is recognised as approved to receive grants in<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      208<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     aid.  The provisions of Chapter VII therefore, will have <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   understood   in   the   context   of   this   distinction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Insofar as Rule 104 is concerned, it deals with opening <\/p>\n<p>     of new primary schools by the School Board. It provides <\/p>\n<p>     that a District School Board shall not open a new primary <\/p>\n<p>     school or take over a private school or incur additional <\/p>\n<p>     expenditure  on primary   schools  maintained  by  it without <\/p>\n<p>     the   sanction   of   Government   or   an   officer   authorised   by <\/p>\n<p>     Government   in   this   behalf.   It   further   provides   that <\/p>\n<p>     except as otherwise provided in these rules, a Municipal <\/p>\n<p>     School   Board   may,   subject   to   the   provision   made   in   its <\/p>\n<p>     budget,   open   new   primary   school   where   necessary   or   to <\/p>\n<p>     take over private school or incur additional expenditure <\/p>\n<p>     on   primary   schools   maintained   by   the   authorised <\/p>\n<p>     municipality. The provisions regarding recognition of and <\/p>\n<p>     grant in aid to private schools are found in part (B) of <\/p>\n<p>     this Chapter. In this part, Rule 106   provides that the <\/p>\n<p>     Management   of   educational   institutions   should   apply   for <\/p>\n<p>     permission   for   establishing   a   private   primary   school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Notably,   before   1998   the   requirement   was   to   take <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.   There was no provision to take permission <\/p>\n<p>     for opening of a new primary school.   Rule 106 and Rule <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   209<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     107(1) as it appears now came to be introduced in 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It   specifies   as   to   what   requirements   should   be <\/p>\n<p>     complied   by   the   management   and   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions to be entitled for grant of permission <\/p>\n<p>     to start  a new private  primary  school.  On grant  of <\/p>\n<p>     such permission, the management is expected to start <\/p>\n<p>     the   primary   school   and   thereafter   apply   for <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   of   that   school   to   the   competent <\/p>\n<p>     Authority. As in the case of provisions in Secondary <\/p>\n<p>     Schools  Code,  we may have to observe  that Rule 106 <\/p>\n<p>     is   in   relation   to   private   management   intending   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   a   primary   school   on   &#8220;grant   in-aid   basis&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     and will have no application to school to be started <\/p>\n<p>     on   permanent   unaided   basis.   Moreover,   the   opening <\/p>\n<p>     part of Rule 107(1) is contrary to Section 18 of the <\/p>\n<p>     Act of 2009 which mandates that the School shall not <\/p>\n<p>     function   or   run   unless   it   is   recognised   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     appropriate   Authority.   We   have   already   dealt   with <\/p>\n<p>     this   aspect   in   some   detail   while   considering   the <\/p>\n<p>     issue   regarding   the   Secondary\/Higher   Secondary <\/p>\n<p>     Schools   and   the   same   reasoning   would   apply   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     regime provided in the Rules of 1949. Inasmuch as,<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    210<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   compliances   to   be   made   by   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management   while   applying   for   permission   are   of <\/p>\n<p>     elementary   nature   and   the   crucial   matters   are <\/p>\n<p>     examined only at the stage of considering grant of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition to the School under Rule 107. The view <\/p>\n<p>     taken by us that there is distinction between the <\/p>\n<p>     terms &#8220;recognised school&#8221; and &#8220;approved school&#8221; is <\/p>\n<p>     also reinforced from the language of Rule 107(4).\n<\/p>\n<p>     It   provides   that   the   appropriate   Authority   shall <\/p>\n<p>     consider   the   inspection   report   and   the <\/p>\n<p>     recommendations of the Competent Authority thereon <\/p>\n<p>     and if satisfied about the need of the School in <\/p>\n<p>     the   locality,   the   standard   of   work   in   and   the <\/p>\n<p>     general   management   of   the   private   school, <\/p>\n<p>     recognise   the   private   school     as   approved   school <\/p>\n<p>     and may, if the school has also applied for grant <\/p>\n<p>     in   aid,   direct   that   it   should   be   treated   as <\/p>\n<p>     eligible   for   the   grant   in   aid   from   the   primary <\/p>\n<p>     education   fund   or   as   the   case   may   be,   from   the <\/p>\n<p>     district   fund.   Even   Rule   108   also   throws   some <\/p>\n<p>     light   on   this   interpretation.   It   provides   that   a <\/p>\n<p>     private   school   recognised   as   an   approved   school, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    211<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     shall be eligible for grant in aid on application <\/p>\n<p>     made in that behalf under Rule 110. The scheme of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Rules   is   that   once   a   school   is   an   approved <\/p>\n<p>     school,   it   is   ordinarily   entitled   to   receive <\/p>\n<p>     grants   in   aid   from   the   Government   or   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>     Authority. The situation as to  when  grant in aid <\/p>\n<p>     can   be   refused,   is   spelt   out   in   Rules   111,   when <\/p>\n<p>     the   approved   private   primary   school   disqualifies <\/p>\n<p>     itself   to   receive   such   grant   on   the   grounds <\/p>\n<p>     specified   in   that   Rule.   Although   Rule   107(3)(b) <\/p>\n<p>     refers to one of the condition to be stated in the <\/p>\n<p>     inspection report as to whether the attendance of <\/p>\n<p>     pupils at the School is regular and satisfactory, <\/p>\n<p>     considering the scheme of Section 18 of the Act of <\/p>\n<p>     2009, this condition cannot be insisted upon &#8211; as <\/p>\n<p>     the   School   cannot   function   until   recognition   is <\/p>\n<p>     granted   by   appropriate   Authority.   On   similar <\/p>\n<p>     lines,   the requirement   of Clauses  (h)  and (j)  of <\/p>\n<p>     Rule   107(3)   presupposes   that   the   School   has <\/p>\n<p>     already   started   soon   after   grant   of   permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The application for permission can be and ought to <\/p>\n<p>     be  insisted  upon  only  if the  new Private   Primary <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    212<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     School  is to be started on grant in aid basis but <\/p>\n<p>     grant of permission, however, by itself, would not <\/p>\n<p>     entitle nor permit starting of the Primary School <\/p>\n<p>     in   absence   of   recognition   of   the   School   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     appropriate   Authority.   Before   issuing   recognition <\/p>\n<p>     to   the   School   concerned,   conditions   specified   in <\/p>\n<p>     Rule 107(2) as well as Rule 107(3) will have to be <\/p>\n<p>     fulfilled   by   the   private   management.   If   the <\/p>\n<p>     private management intends to start the School on <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;permanent   no   grant   basis&#8221;,   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>     Authority in exercise of powers under Rule 107(4) <\/p>\n<p>     may   only   issue   order   to   recognise   the   Private <\/p>\n<p>     School.   But   if   the   private   management   intends   to <\/p>\n<p>     start the private Primary School on &#8220;grant in aid <\/p>\n<p>     basis   or   any   other   aid   from   the   Government&#8221;   and <\/p>\n<p>     have   applied   for   that   purpose,   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>     Authority   in   the   same   order   can   direct   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     School   be   treated   as   eligible   for   grant   in   aid <\/p>\n<p>     being   an   approved   School   from   the   Primary <\/p>\n<p>     Education   Fund   or   as   the   case   may   be,   from   the <\/p>\n<p>     District   Fund.   The   recognition   of   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     Primary School as approved School would result in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     213<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     treating   the   School   being   eligible   for   the   grant <\/p>\n<p>     in   aid.   We   may   also   advert   to   Rule   109   which <\/p>\n<p>     provides   for   mechanism   for   withdrawal   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.   Rule   110   provides   for   when <\/p>\n<p>     application for grant in aid can be made and the <\/p>\n<p>     manner   in   which   the   same   will   have   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     processed. Rule 111 provides when the application <\/p>\n<p>     for   grant   in   aid   may   be   refused.   It   may   not   be <\/p>\n<p>     necessary   to   advert   to   other   provisions   in   these <\/p>\n<p>     rules. Suffice it to observe that for the reasons <\/p>\n<p>     already   recorded,   while   considering   the   question <\/p>\n<p>     as  to whether  prior  permission   ought  to be taken <\/p>\n<p>     by the private management who intends to establish <\/p>\n<p>     the   Secondary   or   Higher   Secondary   School,   on   the <\/p>\n<p>     same   reasoning,   inspite   of   the   provisions   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     Act  of 1947  and Rules  of  1949 to  which   we  have <\/p>\n<p>     already   made   reference,   we   have   no   hesitation   to <\/p>\n<p>     hold   that   such   requirement   will   be   unreasonable <\/p>\n<p>     one   when   the   private   management   intends   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish the Primary School on permanent no grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis   and   without   receiving   any   aid   from   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government whatsoever. The provisions requiring<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    214<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     applying   for   permission   would   be   relevant   and   ought <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   insisted   upon   in   respect   of   Primary   Private <\/p>\n<p>     Schools intending  to start the same on grant in aid <\/p>\n<p>     basis.   Once   the   private   management   applies   for <\/p>\n<p>     permission  to establish a School on no grant in aid <\/p>\n<p>     basis,   cannot   later   on   turn   around   and   insist   for <\/p>\n<p>     providing   grant   in   aid   or   any   other   aid   whatsoever <\/p>\n<p>     for   the   School.   We   shall   presently   deal   with   this <\/p>\n<p>     aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>     46. Turning   to   the   question   as   to   whether     prior <\/p>\n<p>     permission   of   the   appropriate   Authority   to   start   a <\/p>\n<p>     primary school or for that matter secondary or higher <\/p>\n<p>     secondary school is essential, the same will have to <\/p>\n<p>     be considered on the touchstone of reasonableness of <\/p>\n<p>     such   stipulation.     The   necessity   of   taking   prior <\/p>\n<p>     permission   to   start  a   school   is,   primarily,  to   give <\/p>\n<p>     option   to   the   appropriate   Authority   to   consider <\/p>\n<p>     whether   it   was   prepared   to   take   the   additional <\/p>\n<p>     financial   burden   arising   on  account  of   opening   of   a <\/p>\n<p>     new   school.   The   appropriate   Authority   can   exercise   its <\/p>\n<p>     Veto to avoid its further financial obligation arising due<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    215<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     to   providing   for   grant   in   aid   to   such   school <\/p>\n<p>     immediately   or   at   a   later   point   of   time.       The <\/p>\n<p>     allocation   of   grant   would   be   dependent   on   the <\/p>\n<p>     availability   of   funds   earmarked   for   that   purpose <\/p>\n<p>     in the budget or outlay plans.\n<\/p>\n<p>     47.   However, when the private management intends <\/p>\n<p>     to   start   a   new   school   on   unaided   basis   without <\/p>\n<p>     taking   any   assistance   of   the   State   Government   in <\/p>\n<p>     any   manner,   financial   or   otherwise,   the   only <\/p>\n<p>     consideration   that   may   be   relevant     before <\/p>\n<p>     allowing the private management to start a school <\/p>\n<p>     can   be   analogous   to   the   requirements   specified <\/p>\n<p>     under   Rule   2.8     read   with   Rule   3.2   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary   Schools   Code   in   relation   to <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary\/Higher  Secondary  Schools  or Rule 107(2) <\/p>\n<p>     and (3) of the Rules of 1949 applicable to Primary <\/p>\n<p>     Schools   &#8211;   so   as   to   ensure   that   the   financial <\/p>\n<p>     position   of   the   private   management   is   proper   and <\/p>\n<p>     the   school   would   be   capable   of   imparting   quality <\/p>\n<p>     education   and   also   ensure   security   in   respect   of <\/p>\n<p>     working   conditions   of   the   teaching   and   non <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   216<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     teaching   staff   to   be   employed   by   the   management.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Those   aspects   will   have   to   be   considered   to <\/p>\n<p>     examine the application of the private management <\/p>\n<p>     for grant of recognition of the school, who intend <\/p>\n<p>     to   start   a   primary   or   secondary   or   higher <\/p>\n<p>     secondary   school     on   unaided   basis.       The   Rules <\/p>\n<p>     in  the Secondary  School  Code  which  deal  with  the <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   for   grant   of   recognition   and   of <\/p>\n<p>     withdrawal of recognition, the same read thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;Conditions of Recognition<\/p>\n<p>               3.1    The management which have<br \/>\n               been permitted by the Government <\/p>\n<p>               to   open   a   new   Secondary<br \/>\n               School\/Higher   Secondary   School <\/p>\n<p>               shall   apply   in   duplicate   for<br \/>\n               recognition   of   that   school,   to<br \/>\n               the   Deputy   Director   through   the<br \/>\n               Education   Officer   (Secondary) <\/p>\n<p>               concerned   within   thirty   days<br \/>\n               from the date of opening of the<br \/>\n               school. The application shall be<br \/>\n               made   in   the   forms   given   in<br \/>\n               appendix two.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               3.2 A School seeking recognition<br \/>\n               of   the   Department   shall   satisfy<br \/>\n               it   as   regards   the   following<br \/>\n               conditions:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>               (1)   The   School   is   actually<br \/>\n               needed   in   the   locality   and   it <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         217<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      does   not   involve   any   unhealthy<br \/>\n      competition   with   any   existing<br \/>\n      institutions   of   the   same <\/p>\n<p>      category in the neighbourhood;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)  The management is competent <\/p>\n<p>      and reliable and is in the hands<br \/>\n      of   a   properly   constituted<br \/>\n      authority or managing committee;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (3)   The financial stability of<br \/>\n      the management is assured;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (4)   The premises of the school<br \/>\n      are   sufficiently   healthy,   well <\/p>\n<p>      lighted   and   well-ventilated,<br \/>\n      with   due   provision   for   the <\/p>\n<p>      safety of the pupils and contain<br \/>\n      sufficient           accommodation,<br \/>\n      furniture and appliances for the <\/p>\n<p>      instructions   and   recreation   of<br \/>\n      the   pupils   attending   it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Separate   and   satisfactory<br \/>\n      arrangements   are   provided   for <\/p>\n<p>      girls,   in   the   case   of   boys&#8217;<br \/>\n      schools   in   which   girls   are <\/p>\n<p>      admitted;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (5)     The education imparted in<br \/>\n      the school is considered by the <\/p>\n<p>      appropriate   authority   to   be<br \/>\n      satisfactory   in   all   respects.\n<\/p>\n<p>      All the members of the teaching<br \/>\n      staff   are   suitable   and   possess<br \/>\n      the   prescribed   qualifications<br \/>\n      and are sufficient in number and <\/p>\n<p>      the   school   does   not   employ   any<br \/>\n      member   notified   as   unsuitable<br \/>\n      for   employment   by   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director,   under   Rule   77.9   and<br \/>\n      Rule 77.11;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (6)     The   school   follows   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:44 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                           218<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      curriculum   approved   by   and   uses<br \/>\n      text-books   sanctioned   or<br \/>\n      recommended   by   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>      authority;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (7)   Admission   in   various <\/p>\n<p>      standards are accordingly to the<br \/>\n      rules   and   instructions   of   the<br \/>\n      Department\/   State   Board   of<br \/>\n      Secondary   and   Higher   Secondary <\/p>\n<p>      School   Education,   as   the   case<br \/>\n      may be;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (8)   Promotions   made   from<br \/>\n      standard   to   standard   are   in <\/p>\n<p>      accordance   with   the   principles<br \/>\n      laid   down   by   the   Department\/ <\/p>\n<p>      State   Board   of   Secondary   and<br \/>\n      Higher   Secondary   Education,   as<br \/>\n      the case may be;<\/p>\n<p>      (9)   The rates of fees, the pay<br \/>\n      scales,         allowances         and<br \/>\n      conditions   of   service   of   the <\/p>\n<p>      staff and amenities provided are<br \/>\n      according   to   the   instructions <\/p>\n<p>      issued   by   the   Department,   from<br \/>\n      time to time, or the managements<br \/>\n      undertakes to adopt the rates of<br \/>\n      fees   and   pay   scales   and <\/p>\n<p>      allowances laid down and provide<br \/>\n      the   necessary   amenities   within<br \/>\n      the   time   specified   by<br \/>\n      Department.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (10)  The school has adopted for <\/p>\n<p>      its   staff   the   conditions   of<br \/>\n      service   as   prescribed   by   rules<br \/>\n      in   this   code   or   as   may   be   laid<br \/>\n      down by Government, from time to<br \/>\n      time;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (11)     The   school   maintains   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         219<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      necessary   registers   and   records<br \/>\n      in a proper manner. (Please also<br \/>\n      see rule 83 and Annexure 15):\n<\/p>\n<p>      (12)     The   records,   statistical<br \/>\n      returns   and   certificates   given <\/p>\n<p>      by the school or the management<br \/>\n      are trustworthy,<\/p>\n<p>      (13)     The   school   undertakes   to <\/p>\n<p>      make   provisions,   to   the<br \/>\n      satisfaction   of   the   Department,<br \/>\n      that   the   general   rules   of<br \/>\n      discipline   as   laid   down   by<br \/>\n      Government from time to time are <\/p>\n<p>      duly   observed   by   the   school<br \/>\n      employees   as   well   as   by   the <\/p>\n<p>      pupils;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (14)     The   school   undertakes   to <\/p>\n<p>      abide by such orders relating to<br \/>\n      any   of   the   above   conditions   or<br \/>\n      to the working of the school or<br \/>\n      its hostel, as may be, issued by <\/p>\n<p>      the Department, either generally<br \/>\n      or   in   specific   cases   from   time <\/p>\n<p>      to time;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (15)   The management undertakes<br \/>\n      not   to   conduct   or   allow <\/p>\n<p>      unrecognised   schools   or   classes<br \/>\n      to be conducted in the premises<br \/>\n      of the school or elsewhere;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (16)  The management shall adopt<br \/>\n      within the time specified by the <\/p>\n<p>      Department:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i)     In   case   of   aided   schools<br \/>\n      Government Provident Fund Scheme<br \/>\n      for the members of teaching and<br \/>\n      non-teaching   staff   who   were<br \/>\n      appointed   prior   to   1st   April <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                           220<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      1966   and   have   opted   for   such   a<br \/>\n      scheme;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii)  In case of unaided schools<br \/>\n      Provident   Fund   Scheme   based   on<br \/>\n      the   Government   Provident   Fund <\/p>\n<p>      Scheme for its teaching and non-<br \/>\n      teaching staff.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (17)   The   establishment   and <\/p>\n<p>      functioning   of   Guardians   and<br \/>\n      Teachers   Associations   in   school<br \/>\n      is necessary.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n      (Government     \n\n\n\n\n                        \n                           order          No. \n<\/pre>\n<p>      SSN\/2696\/Pra   No   622   \/   Secondary<br \/>\n      Education   2   dated   16th   May <\/p>\n<p>      1996)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.3.(i)   The   Management   of   a<br \/>\n      school   not   in   receipt   of   any<br \/>\n      grant   in   aid,   which   fails   to<br \/>\n      abide by the rules or orders of <\/p>\n<p>      the Department already laid down<br \/>\n      or   issued   by   it   or   that   may   be <\/p>\n<p>      issued or laid down from time to<br \/>\n      time   or   to   set   right   any<br \/>\n      irregularity   committed   by   them,<br \/>\n      within   the   stipulated   period, <\/p>\n<p>      inspite of a specific warning to<br \/>\n      do   so,   shall   deposit   with<br \/>\n      Government such amount as may be<br \/>\n      prescribed   by   the   Director   with<br \/>\n      due   regard   to   the   merit   of   the<br \/>\n      case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii) The deposit shall be liable<br \/>\n      to   be   forfeited   in   full   or   in<br \/>\n      part   if   the   action   taken   in<br \/>\n      abiding   by   the   rules   or   in<br \/>\n      setting right irregularities is,<br \/>\n      in the opinion of the Director, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                         221<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      inadequate   or   unsatisfactory   or<br \/>\n      if   similar   breach   of   rules   or<br \/>\n      irregularities   is   committed <\/p>\n<p>      thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (iii)   A   fresh   deposit   to     make <\/p>\n<p>      up   the   forfeited   amount   or   a<br \/>\n      larger   amount   will   have   to   be<br \/>\n      given   after   the   forfeiture   of<br \/>\n      the   previous   deposits   within <\/p>\n<p>      fifteen   days   from   the   date   of<br \/>\n      the   Director&#8217;s   order   to   that<br \/>\n      effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (iv) In case, the Management is <\/p>\n<p>      found to persist in its defaults<br \/>\n      inspite   of   these   steps,  the <\/p>\n<p>      Department   may   proceed   to<br \/>\n      withdraw   the   recognition   of   the<br \/>\n      school partially or fully as may <\/p>\n<p>      be   considered   necessary.       The<br \/>\n      condition of the school shall be<br \/>\n      tested by due inspection.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.1.  The   recognition   of   the <\/p>\n<p>      schools   shall   be   continued<br \/>\n      provisionally   from   year   to   year<br \/>\n      for subsequent four years by the<br \/>\n      appropriate   authority,   after <\/p>\n<p>      their first year of recognition,<br \/>\n      provided   they   continue   to<br \/>\n      fulfill   the   conditions   of<br \/>\n      recognition laid down in rule 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.2.  After   the   period   of   five <\/p>\n<p>      years,   they   may   be   considered<br \/>\n      for permanent recognition by the<br \/>\n      Deputy   Director,   provided   they<br \/>\n      continue   to   fulfill   the<br \/>\n      conditions laid down in Rule 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Power to Grant Recognition<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          222<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      5.1.  Schools   will   be   recognised<br \/>\n      for the first time by the Deputy <\/p>\n<p>      Director.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.2.  Subject   to   the   fulfillment <\/p>\n<p>      of the conditions laid down and<br \/>\n      those   that   may   be   laid   down,<br \/>\n      from time to time and subject to<br \/>\n      satisfactory   working,   the <\/p>\n<p>      appropriate   authority,   may<br \/>\n      continue   the   recognition   of   the<br \/>\n      school   for   the     next   year(s)<br \/>\n      after inspection.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Refusal of Recognition<\/p>\n<p>      6.1.  When   the   recognition   to   a<br \/>\n      school is refused for the first<br \/>\n      time   by   the   Deputy   Director   or <\/p>\n<p>      its   further   continuance   is<br \/>\n      refused   by   the   appropriate<br \/>\n      authority, the officer concerned<br \/>\n      shall   send   a   copy   of   the   order <\/p>\n<p>      to the correspondent showing the<br \/>\n      reasons   for   which   the <\/p>\n<p>      recognition   or   its   further<br \/>\n      continuance   is   refused.       The<br \/>\n      Deputy   Director   shall   endorse   a<br \/>\n      copy   of   his   order   to   the <\/p>\n<p>      Education Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.2.  Such   an   order   of   refusal<br \/>\n      will   be   communicated   to   the<br \/>\n      correspondent   before   the   end   of<br \/>\n      January   of   the   year   concerned <\/p>\n<p>      provided   application   for<br \/>\n      recognition was sent in time as<br \/>\n      per rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.3.    The   Management   of   the<br \/>\n      school,   recognition   to   which   is<br \/>\n      refused, may submit an appeal to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          223<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      the   Secretary   to   the   Government<br \/>\n      of Maharashtra in the Department<br \/>\n      dealing   with   Education   within <\/p>\n<p>      thirty   days   from   the   date   of<br \/>\n      receipt  of the order of refusal<br \/>\n      or recognition. The appeal shall <\/p>\n<p>      be   sent   by   registered   post.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appeals   received   after   the<br \/>\n      prescribed   time-limit   shall   not<br \/>\n      be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Withdrawal of Recognition<\/p>\n<p>      7.1.  When a school, including a<br \/>\n      permanently   recognised   school,<br \/>\n      has ceased in the opinion of the <\/p>\n<p>      Department,     to   fulfill   any   of<br \/>\n      the   conditions   of   recognition,<br \/>\n      recognition   of   that   school   may <\/p>\n<p>      be withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.2.  When   recognition   is   to   be<br \/>\n      withdrawn,   the   management   will <\/p>\n<p>      be   allowed   a   full   opportunity<br \/>\n      for its explanation.   In such a <\/p>\n<p>      case,   the   management   will   be<br \/>\n      informed of the specific defects<br \/>\n      and   called   upon   to   explain<br \/>\n      within   a   time   limit   to   be <\/p>\n<p>      specified   by   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director, why recognition of the<br \/>\n      school should not be withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.3.  If   the   management   is<br \/>\n      prepared   to   remove   the   defects <\/p>\n<p>      communicated to it, a reasonable<br \/>\n      time   to   be   fixed   by   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director, may be allowed to the<br \/>\n      Management   to   do   so.       If   the<br \/>\n      response   of   the   management   is,<br \/>\n      in   the   opinion   of   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director,                 satisfactory, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                          224<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      recognition   may   be   continued,<br \/>\n      subject   to   such   further<br \/>\n      condition   and   instructions   as <\/p>\n<p>      may   be   deemed   necessary.       But<br \/>\n      if   the   response   is   not<br \/>\n      satisfactory,   the   recognition <\/p>\n<p>      may be withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.4.  The power of withdrawal of<br \/>\n      partial   or   total   recognition, <\/p>\n<p>      including   permanent   recognition<br \/>\n      shall   rest   with   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.5.  The   Management   of   the<br \/>\n      school, the partial or the total<br \/>\n      recognition   to   which   has   been <\/p>\n<p>      withdrawn   by   the   Deputy<br \/>\n      Director,   may submit an appeal<br \/>\n      to   the   Director   within   thirty <\/p>\n<p>      days   from   the   date   of   the   said<br \/>\n      order.       The   appeal   shall   be<br \/>\n      sent   by   registered   post.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appeals   received   after   the <\/p>\n<p>      prescribed   time-limit   will   not<br \/>\n      be entertained. (The Director or <\/p>\n<p>      his   representative   not   b   elow<br \/>\n      the   rank   of   the   Joint   Director<br \/>\n      of   Education,   may   decide   the<br \/>\n      appeal   after   giving   hearing   to <\/p>\n<p>      the   representatives   of   the<br \/>\n      Management   and   his   decision<br \/>\n      shall   b   e   final   and   binding   on<br \/>\n      the Management.)<\/p>\n<p>      This portion is added vide (G.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>      No.   GAC-1080\/147\/30-37   Dt.\n<\/p>\n<p>      14\/4\/80)<\/p>\n<p>      (No   Management   shall   close<br \/>\n      school or any of the recognised<br \/>\n      classes or make voluntary change<br \/>\n      in   approved   school   subjects, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    225<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                which   may   result   in   any   of   its<br \/>\n                permanent   staff   being   rendered<br \/>\n                surplus,   without   due   notice   to <\/p>\n<p>                the   Regional   Deputy   Director   of<br \/>\n                Education,   atleast   one   academic<br \/>\n                term in advance, and act as per <\/p>\n<p>                his decision.   An appeal on the<br \/>\n                decision   of   the   Deputy   Director<br \/>\n                of Education in this case shall<br \/>\n                lie   with   the   Director   of   the <\/p>\n<p>                Education.)<\/p>\n<p>                This portion is added vide (G.R.<br \/>\n                NO.   GAC-1090\/234\/SE.2   Dt.\n<\/p>\n<p>                17\/12\/90)<\/p>\n<p>                7.6.  The   Management   shall   not <\/p>\n<p>                shift any school run by it from<br \/>\n                its   existing   location   to   any<br \/>\n                other   location   for   any   reason, <\/p>\n<p>                without prior written permission<br \/>\n                of   Government.       If   the<br \/>\n                Management   shifts   the   school<br \/>\n                without   prior   permission   of <\/p>\n<p>                Government,   the   recognition   of<br \/>\n                such   a   school   shall <\/p>\n<p>                automatically stand withdrawn on<br \/>\n                ground   of   such   unauthorised<br \/>\n                shifting.\n<\/p>\n<p>                The rule is added vide (G.R. No.<br \/>\n                GAC-1081\/283\/SE.2 Dt. 24\/7\/81).\n<\/p>\n<p>     48.             A priori, the regime provided in   Rule <\/p>\n<p>     2.1. to 2.14 of the Secondary Schools Code or Rule <\/p>\n<p>     106 of the Rules of 1949 can be insisted upon only <\/p>\n<p>     in   respect   of   proposals   for   starting   new   school <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;on   grant   in   aid   basis&#8221;   as   that   may   result   in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    226<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     financial implication for the Public Funds.   But, <\/p>\n<p>     in   the   light   of   the   provisions   of   Act   of   2009, <\/p>\n<p>     grant   of   permission   by   itself   would   not   entitle <\/p>\n<p>     the management to start the school.   That can be <\/p>\n<p>     done   only   upon   grant   of     Certificate   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     49.             What is significant to notice is that <\/p>\n<p>     the compliances to be made for grant of permission <\/p>\n<p>     are of very preliminary nature, as referred to in <\/p>\n<p>     Rule 2.8 of the Secondary Schools Code or Rule 106 <\/p>\n<p>     of the Rules of 1949.     The crucial and material <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   are   considered   only   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n<p>     scrutiny of the proposal for recognition, in terms <\/p>\n<p>     of Rule 3.2 of the Code or Rule 107 of the Rules <\/p>\n<p>     of   1949.   Only   at   the   stage   of   recognition,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Department has to be satisfied that the school is <\/p>\n<p>     actually  needed  in  the locality  and it  would  not <\/p>\n<p>     result in unhealthy competition with any existing <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   &#8220;of   the   same   category&#8221;   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     neighbourhood;   competence   and   reliability   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     management   of   the   proposed   school;   financial <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   227<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     stability   of   the   management;   regarding   the <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure and the due provision for safety of <\/p>\n<p>     the pupils and separate sufficient arrangement for <\/p>\n<p>     the   girls   is   provided.   There   are   other   matters <\/p>\n<p>     provided in Rule 3.2 of the Code and Rule 107 of <\/p>\n<p>     the Rules of 1949,  which are to be reckoned while <\/p>\n<p>     considering   the   proposal   for   recognition   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     50.             The   fact   that   the   private   management <\/p>\n<p>     intending   to   start   an   unaided   school   is   not <\/p>\n<p>     obliged   to   take   prior   permission   of   the   State, <\/p>\n<p>     does   not   extricate   the   said   management   from <\/p>\n<p>     complying   and   fulfilling   the   strict   norms   and <\/p>\n<p>     standards   including   the   terms   and   conditions   for <\/p>\n<p>     grant   of   recognition.   Notably,   the   factor <\/p>\n<p>     regarding   existence   of   another   school   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     locality   or   non   inclusion   of   the   locality   for   a <\/p>\n<p>     school in the perspective plan are not ascribable <\/p>\n<p>     to the conditions provided in Rule 2.8 of the Code <\/p>\n<p>     or Rule 106 of the Rules of 1949,   but are found <\/p>\n<p>     in Rule 3.2 (1) of the Code and Rule 107(2)(a) of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    228<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the  Rules  of 1949,  which  is relevant  to consider <\/p>\n<p>     proposal   for   &#8220;recognition&#8221;   of   the   school.     Thus, <\/p>\n<p>     in   relation   to   proposal   for   private   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     schools, the regime regarding recognition provided <\/p>\n<p>     in  Rule 3.1  to 7.6  of the Code  and  Rules  106 to <\/p>\n<p>     109   of   the   Rules   of   1949   would   be   material;   and <\/p>\n<p>     compliance   of   conditions   specified   in   Rules   3.1 <\/p>\n<p>     and 3.2 of Code and Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949 <\/p>\n<p>     would   be   necessary.     Indeed,   hereafter   these <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   may   be   in   addition   to   the   norms   and <\/p>\n<p>     standards   specified   in   Sections   19,   25   and <\/p>\n<p>     Schedule to the Act of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     51.               As   aforesaid,   the   entire   perspective <\/p>\n<p>     regarding   right   to   establish   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   by   private   unaided   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   has   undergone   a   sea   change   after   the <\/p>\n<p>     decision  of the  Apex  Court  in  T.M.A.  Pai  (supra) <\/p>\n<p>     and the enactment of Act of 2009.    The   argument <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   State   that   the   said   decision   was   at   the <\/p>\n<p>     instance of the private management in whose favour <\/p>\n<p>     permission   to   run   educational   institution   was <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   229<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     already   granted   can     be   no   basis   to   distinguish <\/p>\n<p>     the   said   decision   or   to   overlook   the   exposition <\/p>\n<p>     therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>     52.      Be that as it may, it is well established <\/p>\n<p>     position that the provisions of Secondary Schools <\/p>\n<p>     Code   are   only   a   compendium   of   administrative <\/p>\n<p>     instructions.   If   the   requirements   under   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of Code or for that matter Rule <\/p>\n<p>     106 of the Rules of 1949 can be insisted upon even <\/p>\n<p>     qua   the   private   management   intending   to   start   an <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   educational   institution,   can   it   be   said <\/p>\n<p>     that   those   requirements   are   in   the   interests   of <\/p>\n<p>     the general public and reasonable restrictions? To <\/p>\n<p>     answer this controversy, we would advert to clause <\/p>\n<p>     (6)   of   Article   19   of   the   Constitution   of   India, <\/p>\n<p>     which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8221; (6) Nothing in sub-clause (g)<br \/>\n                of the said clause shall affect<br \/>\n                the   operation   of   any   existing<br \/>\n                law in so far as it imposes, or<br \/>\n                prevent   the   State   from   making<br \/>\n                any   law   imposing,   in   the<br \/>\n                interests   of   the   general <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    230<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                public,  reasonable   restrictions<br \/>\n                on   the   exercise   of   the   right<br \/>\n                conferred   by   the   said   sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                clause,   and,   in   particular,<br \/>\n                (nothing in the said sub-clause<br \/>\n                shall   affect   the   operation   of <\/p>\n<p>                any   existing   law   in   so   far   as<br \/>\n                it   relates   to,   or   prevent   the<br \/>\n                State   from   making   any   law<br \/>\n                relating to,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     (i) the   professional   or<br \/>\n                technical             qualifications<br \/>\n                necessary   for   practicing   any<br \/>\n                profession   or   carrying   on   any <\/p>\n<p>                occupation,   trade   or   business,<br \/>\n                or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     (ii) the carrying on by the<br \/>\n                State,   or   by   a   corporation<br \/>\n                owned   or   controlled   by   the <\/p>\n<p>                State,   of   any   trade,   business,<br \/>\n                industry or service, whether to<br \/>\n                the   exclusion,   complete   or<br \/>\n                partial,   of   citizens   or <\/p>\n<p>                otherwise.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     53.        We have already held that the subject of <\/p>\n<p>     imparting   education   cannot   be   said   to   be   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     exclusive   domain   of   the   State.   It   can   be <\/p>\n<p>     supplemented   by   the   private   entrepreneurs   or <\/p>\n<p>     Associations     and   institutions.   If   so,   the <\/p>\n<p>     restrictions   such   as   to   take   prior   permission   to <\/p>\n<p>     start   the   school   (even   if   the   private   management <\/p>\n<p>     intends   to   establish   the   educational   institution <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   231<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     with proper infrastructure and willing to abide by <\/p>\n<p>     the   strictest   regime   to   be   articulated   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   to   maintain   high   quality   of   education   and <\/p>\n<p>     adequate   security   to   its   employees   coupled   with <\/p>\n<p>     guarantee  of no commercialization  or profiteering <\/p>\n<p>     that  too  without  seeking   any aid  from the  State-\n<\/p>\n<p>     financial   or   otherwise),   would   impinge   upon   the <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)<\/p>\n<p>     (g)  of the  Constitution.   For, the  State  can only <\/p>\n<p>     regulate   the   activity   by   imposing   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restrictions   in   the   interests   of   the   general <\/p>\n<p>     public.  The reasonable restrictions can be in the <\/p>\n<p>     form   of   imposing   strictest   of   conditions   for <\/p>\n<p>     regulating   the   said   activity   whilst   at   the   stage <\/p>\n<p>     of   granting   recognition   and   later   on   for <\/p>\n<p>     continuation   of   such   recognition   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions.   However,   insistence   for <\/p>\n<p>     prior   permission   for   establishing   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution on permanent no grant basis; and more <\/p>\n<p>     so that requirement being insisted by the State in <\/p>\n<p>     the context of the perspective plan formulated or <\/p>\n<p>     to be formulated by it, cannot stand the test of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:45 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    232<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     reasonable restriction,  much less in the interests <\/p>\n<p>     of the general public.\n<\/p>\n<p>     54.        Once the right to establish an educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   is   recognized   as   a   fundamental   right <\/p>\n<p>     available   to   any   private   management,   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     cannot lightly interfere with such right of private <\/p>\n<p>     management   on   the   ground   that   the   location   chosen <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   private   management   is   not   specified   in   its <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan.   For,   the   perspective   plan <\/p>\n<p>     referred   to   in   the   Secondary   Schools   Code   or   the <\/p>\n<p>     Scheme   envisaged   in   Rules   of   1949   or   for   that <\/p>\n<p>     matter the School Development Plan in Section 22 of <\/p>\n<p>     the Act of 2009, would be and ought to be relevant <\/p>\n<p>     only to those educational institutions which are to <\/p>\n<p>     be   run   by   the   local   Authority   or   by   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management on &#8220;grant in aid basis or receiving any <\/p>\n<p>     other   aid   from   the   Government&#8221;.   The   primary <\/p>\n<p>     objective   of   the   perspective   plan   or   the     school <\/p>\n<p>     Development  Plan as the case may be, is to ensure <\/p>\n<p>     that there is uniform and need based allocation of <\/p>\n<p>     grant in aid to aided institutions so as to invest and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   233<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     spend   public   funds   to   provide   a   platform   for <\/p>\n<p>     pursuing   compulsory   education   to   the   deserving <\/p>\n<p>     children   in   the   given     region,   considering   the <\/p>\n<p>     population   and   the   felt   need   of   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution at that place. The perspective plan is <\/p>\n<p>     relevant only to discharge the primary obligation <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   State   of   providing   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education   to   children   of   specified   age   and   can <\/p>\n<p>     have   no   bearing   on   the   private   management <\/p>\n<p>     intending   to   start   private   institutions   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis   without   taking   any   aid <\/p>\n<p>     from the State &#8211; financial or otherwise. Whereas, <\/p>\n<p>     such   private   unaided   institutions   would   not   only <\/p>\n<p>     lend support to the Government in discharging  its <\/p>\n<p>     constitutional   obligation   but   also   provide     for <\/p>\n<p>     healthy   competition   to   the   Government   aided <\/p>\n<p>     schools   and   more   importantly   fair   opportunity   to <\/p>\n<p>     the   children     in   the   locality   to   choose   between <\/p>\n<p>     the two institutions subject to their capacity to <\/p>\n<p>     pay   the   fees   of   the   private   institution   run   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis.   In   Paragraph   56,   in <\/p>\n<p>     T.M.A.   Pai&#8217;s   case   (supra),   the   Apex   Court   has <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     234<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     taken   judicial   note   of   the   fact   that   better <\/p>\n<p>     working   conditions   will   attract   better   teachers.\n<\/p>\n<p>     More   amenities   will   ensure   that   better   students <\/p>\n<p>     seek   admission   to   that   institution.   Further,   one <\/p>\n<p>     cannot   lose   sight   of   the   fact   that   we   live   in   a <\/p>\n<p>     competitive world today, where   providing quality <\/p>\n<p>     education   alone   can     lead   to   emancipation   and <\/p>\n<p>     empowerment.   A large number of institutions have <\/p>\n<p>     been started by private management who do not seek <\/p>\n<p>     Governmental aid. Resultantly, the   children will <\/p>\n<p>     have various options open to him\/her.\n<\/p>\n<p>     55. In   Paragraph   61   of   the   same   decision,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Court   proceeded   to   observe   that   it   is   no   secret <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   examination   results   at   all   levels   of <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   private   schools,   notwithstanding   the <\/p>\n<p>     stringent   regulations   of   the   Governmental <\/p>\n<p>     Authorities,   are   far   superior   to   the   results   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Government-maintained   schools.   There   is   no <\/p>\n<p>     compulsion to attend private schools. The rush for <\/p>\n<p>     admission   is   occasioned   by   the   standards <\/p>\n<p>     maintained in such schools, and recognition of the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    235<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     fact   that   State-run   schools   do   not   provide   the <\/p>\n<p>     same   standard   of   education.   It   has   further <\/p>\n<p>     observed that the State says that it has no funds <\/p>\n<p>     to   establish   institutions   at   the   same   level   of <\/p>\n<p>     excellence   as   private   schools.   To   avoid   lowering <\/p>\n<p>     of   standards   from   excellence   to   a   level   of <\/p>\n<p>     mediocrity,   the   solution   would   appear   to   lie   in <\/p>\n<p>     the   States   not   using   their   scanty   resources   to <\/p>\n<p>     prop   up   institutions   that   are   able   to   otherwise <\/p>\n<p>     maintain   themselves   out   of   the   fees   charged,   but <\/p>\n<p>     in improving the facilities and infrastructure of <\/p>\n<p>     State-run   schools   and   in   subsidizing   the   fees <\/p>\n<p>     payable by the students there. It will be in the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   general   public   that   more   good <\/p>\n<p>     quality   schools   are   established.   In   Paragraph   49 <\/p>\n<p>     of  the same  decision,  the Apex  Court  opined  that <\/p>\n<p>     not only the demand has overwhelmed the ability of <\/p>\n<p>     the State to provide education, but there has also <\/p>\n<p>     been a significant change in the way of education <\/p>\n<p>     is   perceived.       It   went   on   to   observe   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     logic   of   today&#8217;s   economics   and   an   ideology   of <\/p>\n<p>     privatization   have   contributed   to   the   resurgence <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    236<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     of private higher education, and the establishment <\/p>\n<p>     of   private   institutions   where   none   or   very   few <\/p>\n<p>     existed   before.       Even   in   the   case   of   Unni <\/p>\n<p>     Krishnan (supra), in Paragraph 149, the Apex Court <\/p>\n<p>     took   judicial   notice   of   the   fact   that   the   hard <\/p>\n<p>     reality which emerges is that private educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions &#8220;are a necessity&#8221; in the present day <\/p>\n<p>     context.       Further,   it   is   not   possible   to   do <\/p>\n<p>     without   them   as   the   State   is   in   no   position   to <\/p>\n<p>     meet the ever growing demand.   It also found that <\/p>\n<p>     education   is   one   of   the   most   important   functions <\/p>\n<p>     of the State but have no monopoly therein.   Even <\/p>\n<p>     the   private   educational   institutions   too   have   a <\/p>\n<p>     role to play.\n<\/p>\n<p>     56.    Considering   the  above,   we  are  of   the  view <\/p>\n<p>     that   children   and   their   parents   who   exercise <\/p>\n<p>     choice   in   favour   of   the   private   unaided   schools <\/p>\n<p>     would   take   admissions   in   those   schools   by   choice <\/p>\n<p>     and not by compulsion. Indeed, no private unaided <\/p>\n<p>     school can compel the students in the locality to <\/p>\n<p>     take   admission   in   their   school.     Nor   such   a <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   237<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     private   unaided   school   can   be   compelled   to   admit <\/p>\n<p>     children in its school after its establishment so <\/p>\n<p>     as to impart free education to &#8220;all its students&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8211; as  a  precondition  for  grant  of recognition.  We <\/p>\n<p>     have   no   doubt   that   such   restriction   by   no <\/p>\n<p>     standards,   can   be   said   to   be   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restriction   qua   the   private   unaided   institution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     However,   after   commencement   of   Act   of   2009,   by <\/p>\n<p>     virtue of Section 12(1)(c) read with 2(n)(iv), the <\/p>\n<p>     State   whilst   granting   recognition   to   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     unaided school, may specify permissible percentage <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   seats   to   be   ear-marked   for   deserving <\/p>\n<p>     children who may not be in a position to pay their <\/p>\n<p>     fees or charges or expenses of the private school.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   Apex   Court   in  T.M.A.   Pai&#8217;s   case   (supra),   in <\/p>\n<p>     Paragraph   53,   has   observed   that   the   State   while <\/p>\n<p>     prescribing   qualification   for   admissions   in   a <\/p>\n<p>     private   unaided   institutions   may   provide   for <\/p>\n<p>     condition   of   giving   admission   to   a   small <\/p>\n<p>     percentage   of   students   belonging   to   weaker <\/p>\n<p>     sections of the society by granting them freeships <\/p>\n<p>     or scholarships, if not granted by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   238<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Applying   the   said   law,   such   condition   can   be <\/p>\n<p>     imposed while granting recognition to the private <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   institutions,   provided,   however,   the <\/p>\n<p>     percentage   should   not   result   in   a   situation   that <\/p>\n<p>     running of the school would become unviable in the <\/p>\n<p>     long run.  Indeed, by virtue of Section 12(2) read <\/p>\n<p>     with   Section   2(n)(iv),   private   unaided   school <\/p>\n<p>     would   be   entitled   to   be   reimbursed     with   the <\/p>\n<p>     expenditure incurred by it in providing   free and <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory   elementary   education   to   children <\/p>\n<p>     belonging   to   weaker   sections   and   disadvantaged <\/p>\n<p>     group   in the neighbourhood to the extent of per-\n<\/p>\n<p>     child-expenditure   incurred   by     the   State   in   a <\/p>\n<p>     school   specified   in   Section   2(n)(i),   or   the <\/p>\n<p>     actual amount charged from the child, whichever is <\/p>\n<p>     less.   That reimbursement, however, is not in the <\/p>\n<p>     nature   of grant or aid as such, but simplicitor <\/p>\n<p>     reimbursement   of   the   expenses   incurred   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     school qua the specified percentage of children at <\/p>\n<p>     the prescribed rate.  Imposing of such restriction <\/p>\n<p>     however,  would  not  create  any right  in  favour  of <\/p>\n<p>     the private unaided school to ask for grant in aid <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     239<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     for   the   school   on   the   assertion   that   it   is <\/p>\n<p>     virtually discharging the obligation of the State <\/p>\n<p>     of providing free education to children below the <\/p>\n<p>     age   of   14   years.     In   as   much   as,   by   virtue   of <\/p>\n<p>     Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009, it is as much <\/p>\n<p>     the   statutory   obligation   of     every   recognised <\/p>\n<p>     school to provide free and compulsory education to <\/p>\n<p>     the specified   percentage of children admitted in <\/p>\n<p>     that   regard   and   also   a   condition   for   grant   and <\/p>\n<p>     continuation of recognition.  Some   what  similar <\/p>\n<p>     arrangement     is     provided     in     respect   of <\/p>\n<p>     hospitals   run by the public charitable trusts to <\/p>\n<p>     offer free medical aid to specified percentage or <\/p>\n<p>     number of   patients. Such a restriction is in the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   general   public   and   also   a <\/p>\n<p>     reasonable   restriction.     Such     measure   addresses <\/p>\n<p>     both   the   aspects,   namely,   upholding   the <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental   right   of   the   private   management   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   an   unaided   educational   institution   of <\/p>\n<p>     their   choice     and   at   the   same   time   securing   the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   children   in   the   locality,   in <\/p>\n<p>     particular,   those   who   may   not   be   able   to   pursue <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    240<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     education due to inability to pay fees or charges <\/p>\n<p>     or   expenses   of   the   private   unaided   schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further,   starting   of   private   unaided   school   in   a <\/p>\n<p>     given   locality   may   provide   a   platform   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     children in the locality to avail of the facility <\/p>\n<p>     offered   by   the   private   unaided   school   on   agreed <\/p>\n<p>     terms and conditions which terms, however, should <\/p>\n<p>     not   result   in   profiteering   or   commercialization.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In case any complaint in that behalf is received, <\/p>\n<p>     it will be the obligation of the State to step in <\/p>\n<p>     immediately  so as to  remedy  such  mischief  at  the <\/p>\n<p>     earliest opportunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>     57.        It   may   be   relevant   to   mention   that     at <\/p>\n<p>     the  national   level,  there  is a serious   debate  of <\/p>\n<p>     having   uniform   education   policy   to   integrate   the <\/p>\n<p>     different   educational   streams   so   as   to   provide <\/p>\n<p>     quality   and   meaningful   education.   Significantly, <\/p>\n<p>     the   restriction   to   take   prior   permission   is   only <\/p>\n<p>     essential   in   relation   to   the   schools   governed   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   provisions   of   the   Secondary   Schools   Code   or <\/p>\n<p>     the  Rules  of 1949.    Besides  the  schools  governed <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   241<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     by   the   said   Regulations,   it   is   common   knowledge <\/p>\n<p>     that   other   schools   are   also   established   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     same   locality   which   are   governed   by   different <\/p>\n<p>     Boards and Regulations such as I.C.S.E., C.B.S.E., <\/p>\n<p>     I.B.   and   I.G.C.E.   etc.   The   existence   of <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan or non existence thereof, has no <\/p>\n<p>     relevance   for   establishment   of   those   schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Thus, the logic given by the State of existence of <\/p>\n<p>     another school in the locality, so as to deny the <\/p>\n<p>     claim   of   private   institution   to   establish   an <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institution   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis in the same locality in the context of its <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan,   is   inapplicable   qua   other <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   not   governed   by   the   stated <\/p>\n<p>     Regulations.  The Logic of the State is founded on <\/p>\n<p>     Rule 3.2(1) of the Code or Rule 107(2)(a) of the <\/p>\n<p>     Rules   of   1949,   which   provide   that   the   Authority <\/p>\n<p>     should   be   satisfied   that   the   school   is   actually <\/p>\n<p>     needed in the locality and it would not involve in <\/p>\n<p>     any   unhealthy   competition   with   any   existing <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   of   the   same   category   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     neighbourhood.     Besides,   the   restriction   of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    242<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     observing   5   kms.   distance   was   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n<p>     policy   placed   before   this   Court   in  Gramvikas <\/p>\n<p>     S.P.Mandal(supra).      In   the   first   place,   having <\/p>\n<p>     regard to the mandate of Section 6 read with 9(b) <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   Act   of   2009   the   Government   is   obliged   to <\/p>\n<p>     ensure     that   school   is   established   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     neighbourhood   at   the   Gram   Panchayat   level.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Besides,  in the  recent  decision  of Full  Bench  of <\/p>\n<p>     our   High   Court   in   the   case   of  Shikshan   Prasarak <\/p>\n<p>     Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; ors. reported in <\/p>\n<p>     2009   (5)   Mh.L.J.   969,   to   which   one   of   us     was <\/p>\n<p>     party   (A.M.Khanwilkar,   J),   it   is   held   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     condition   of   5   kms.   radius   or   distance   is   not   a <\/p>\n<p>     mandatory   or   absolute   condition   &#8211;   as   it   has   an <\/p>\n<p>     inbuilt element of relaxation.  At any  rate, even <\/p>\n<p>     as   per   the   abovesaid   provisions,   the     existing <\/p>\n<p>     institution must be of &#8220;the same category&#8221;, e.g., <\/p>\n<p>     aided or unaided   as the case may be.     Further, <\/p>\n<p>     even if the existing  school in the locality is of <\/p>\n<p>     the   same   category,   that   would   not   justify   the <\/p>\n<p>     rejection of its proposal to grant recognition to <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:46 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     243<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     start an unaided school of the private management, <\/p>\n<p>     unless it is further found that the establishment <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   new   school   of   the   same   category   would <\/p>\n<p>     result in unhealthy competition.   In a given case <\/p>\n<p>     it   is   possible   that   the   new   school   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     established   in   the   locality   on   unaided   basis <\/p>\n<p>     where   another   unaided   school   already   exists,   may <\/p>\n<p>     be able to   cater to the requirement of entirely <\/p>\n<p>     different   class   or   category   of   children   or   with <\/p>\n<p>     ultra    modern  facilities   and for  more and  better <\/p>\n<p>     opportunities to the children.   Such a school may <\/p>\n<p>     broadly   fit   into   the   description   of     &#8220;the   same <\/p>\n<p>     category&#8221; in the locality being an unaided school, <\/p>\n<p>     but   still   it   can   be     a   school   with   a   difference <\/p>\n<p>     and   not   stricto   senso   of   the   same   category.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These   are   matters   to   be   decided   on   case   to   case <\/p>\n<p>     basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     58.           The controversy which has arisen before <\/p>\n<p>     us,   in   our   opinion,   is   the   making   of   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   for   having   recently   extended   grant   in <\/p>\n<p>     aid to large number of  private institutions which <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   244<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     were initially started on permanent no grant basis <\/p>\n<p>     in   absence   of   the   perspective   plan.   The <\/p>\n<p>     consequences of financial implication to the State <\/p>\n<p>     flowing from that decision can be no justification <\/p>\n<p>     to negate the right recognized by the Constitution <\/p>\n<p>     guaranteed   to   every   citizen   to   establish   an <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institution   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis,   by   issuing   one   fiat.   The   State   Government <\/p>\n<p>     at   best   is   competent   only   to   impose   reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restriction as condition for grant of recognition, <\/p>\n<p>     such   as   to   maintain   high   quality   education   and <\/p>\n<p>     provide security to   the staff to be employed by <\/p>\n<p>     the School;  but cannot reject the proposal merely <\/p>\n<p>     because the location where the private management <\/p>\n<p>     intends to start  the school on permanent no grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis,   is not specified  in   its  perspective  plan <\/p>\n<p>     or   non   existence   thereof.     As   aforesaid,   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   or   the   School   Development   Plan, <\/p>\n<p>     as the case may be, are primarily to identify the <\/p>\n<p>     localities   in   which   the  Government   intends   to <\/p>\n<p>     provide   free   and   compulsory   education   by   way   of <\/p>\n<p>     giving grants to the private aided schools.   That<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   245<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     has no relevance to the consideration of proposal of <\/p>\n<p>     the private management to grant recognition to start <\/p>\n<p>     school   on   permanent   non-grant   basis   or   any   aid <\/p>\n<p>     whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<p>     59.        The right of the private management need not <\/p>\n<p>     be confused with the constitutional obligation of the <\/p>\n<p>     State to provide free and compulsory education to all <\/p>\n<p>     children   of   the   age   of   6   to   14   years.   Granting <\/p>\n<p>     recognition to a private management school started on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis,   by   itself   cannot   be   the <\/p>\n<p>     basis   to   assume   that   the   State   has   failed   to <\/p>\n<p>     discharge   its   obligation   to   provide   free   and <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 <\/p>\n<p>     to 14 years in that locality. The private management <\/p>\n<p>     institution   which   has   been   started   on   clear <\/p>\n<p>     understanding that recognition is granted to run the <\/p>\n<p>     school on permanent no grant basis and not receiving <\/p>\n<p>     any other aid whatsoever from the Government, cannot <\/p>\n<p>     be heard to say that it is entitled for grant in aid <\/p>\n<p>     because   there   was   no   existing   school   in   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     locality   to provide   for  free  and  compulsory<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     246<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     education to children of specified age. For, it would be <\/p>\n<p>     a case of a conscious decision of the Private Management <\/p>\n<p>     to   start   the   school   on   permanent   no   grant   basis   and <\/p>\n<p>     without taking any kind of assistance from the State. It <\/p>\n<p>     would be a different matter if the State recognizing the <\/p>\n<p>     fact that there is  no school run by the local Authority <\/p>\n<p>     or the State or grant in aid school in a given locality <\/p>\n<p>     and   &#8220;that   locality   is   specified   in   the   perspective   or <\/p>\n<p>     School   Development   Plan&#8221;   coupled   with   the   fact   that <\/p>\n<p>     substantial   number   of   children   of   that   locality   are <\/p>\n<p>     unable   to   pursue   and   complete   the   elementary   education <\/p>\n<p>     inspite   of   the     private   unaided   school   providing   for <\/p>\n<p>     specified   seats   for   that   purpose,   due   to   inability   to <\/p>\n<p>     afford fees or charges or expenses therefor, may on its <\/p>\n<p>     own  consider to provide  grants to that school in terms <\/p>\n<p>     of   Section   22(2)   of   the   Act   of   2009.   Whereas,   if   a <\/p>\n<p>     locality   is   not   included   in   the   perspective\/School <\/p>\n<p>     Development Plan the question of giving grants to private <\/p>\n<p>     schools in such locality does not arise.   In that case, <\/p>\n<p>     however, the   unaided school would be entitled only for <\/p>\n<p>     reimbursement   of the   expenses   incurred    by <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   247<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     it on the children admitted against the specified <\/p>\n<p>     percentage   at   the   prescribed   rate,   in   terms   of <\/p>\n<p>     Section   12(2)   read   with   Section   2(n)(iv)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Act   of   2009.   Thus   understood,   the   provisions <\/p>\n<p>     requiring   prior   permission   from   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   for   establishment   of   an   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   to   be   started   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis   and   without   taking   any   aid   from   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     whatsoever &#8211;  financial or otherwise, cannot stand <\/p>\n<p>     the   test   of     reasonable   restrictions   or   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     interests   of   the   general   public   as   such.   That, <\/p>\n<p>     however, does not mean that the private management <\/p>\n<p>     intending  to establish  an educational  institution <\/p>\n<p>     would be entitled for recognition of the school as <\/p>\n<p>     a matter of course.\n<\/p>\n<p>     60.        In   the   age   of   Globalisation   and <\/p>\n<p>     privatization, it would be a pedantic approach of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   to   insist   that   without   its   prior <\/p>\n<p>     permission   and   more   so   unless   the   locality   where <\/p>\n<p>     the   proposed   institution   is   to   be   started   is <\/p>\n<p>     identified in the perspective plan to be prepared <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   248<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     by   it,   the   private   management   intending   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   school   strictly   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis,   cannot   avail   of   the   fundamental   right <\/p>\n<p>     guaranteed   under   Article   19(1)(g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution. On the other hand, the State should <\/p>\n<p>     be   encouraging   private   investment   in   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions on unaided basis  &#8211; which the private <\/p>\n<p>     management is entitled to pursue on condition that <\/p>\n<p>     it   would   fulfill   the   prescribed   norms   and <\/p>\n<p>     standards   and   not   indulge   in   profiteering   and <\/p>\n<p>     commercialization  of education.  Those  are matters <\/p>\n<p>     of   regulation   and   strict   enforcement   of   such <\/p>\n<p>     regime.     In   our   view,   establishment   of   private <\/p>\n<p>     unaided institution would not affect the prospects <\/p>\n<p>     of the  municipal schools or grant in aid schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     No hard facts to hold otherwise are placed before <\/p>\n<p>     us.   The children who do not have paying capacity <\/p>\n<p>     to   pursue   studies   in   a   private   institution   would <\/p>\n<p>     continue   with   the   municipal   or   grant   in   aid <\/p>\n<p>     schools   or   take   admission   in   the   private   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     schools   against   the   seats     earmarked   for   as   per <\/p>\n<p>     Section   12(1)(c)   of   the   Act   of   2009.   But   those <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   249<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     children   who can afford fees and charges of the <\/p>\n<p>     private   institution,   alone   would   be   attracted   to <\/p>\n<p>     the   private   institution   provided   the   performance <\/p>\n<p>     of that institution is better and it offers higher <\/p>\n<p>     quality education and amenities in relative terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The children from the locality will have a choice <\/p>\n<p>     between   the   private   unaided   school   and   the <\/p>\n<p>     municipal   or   grant   in   aid   schools.       Taking   any <\/p>\n<p>     other  view  would  be denial   of opportunity  to  the <\/p>\n<p>     children to exercise the option to pursue quality <\/p>\n<p>     education to be imparted by the unaided schools to <\/p>\n<p>     make   them   self   reliant   and   not   merely   potential <\/p>\n<p>     pen-pushers. The apprehension of the State that by <\/p>\n<p>     induction   of   the   private   institution   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     locality,   the   strength   of   the   students   ratio   in <\/p>\n<p>     the   municipal   or   grant   in   aid   school   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     affected,   making   it   difficult   to   sustain   the <\/p>\n<p>     divisions,   is   completely   misplaced   for   the   same <\/p>\n<p>     reason.   The   demand   for   more   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institutions is ever growing. If the State cannot <\/p>\n<p>     provide educational institutions imparting quality <\/p>\n<p>     education  at  every  nook and  corner  of the  State, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   250<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     even though constitutionally obliged to do so, on <\/p>\n<p>     account   of   financial   compulsions   or   inadequate <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructural   resources,   there   is   no <\/p>\n<p>     justification   to   deny   opportunity   to   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management   to   establish   an   unaided   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   in   such   locality,   on   the   specious <\/p>\n<p>     reasoning     that   the   locality   is   not   included   in <\/p>\n<p>     its perspective or School Development Plan.\n<\/p>\n<p>     61.<\/p>\n<p>                We have no hesitation in taking the view <\/p>\n<p>     that preparation of a perspective plan and School <\/p>\n<p>     Development Plan or for that matter, non inclusion <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   locality   in   the     said   plans   where   the <\/p>\n<p>     proposed   school   is   to   be   established   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     private   management   on   permanent   no   grant   basis, <\/p>\n<p>     can   be   no   ground   to   disallow   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management   to   establish   an   unaided   educational <\/p>\n<p>     institution   in   such   locality.   That   approach <\/p>\n<p>     cannot   be   sustained   either   on   the   touchstone   of <\/p>\n<p>     the interests of the general public or reasonable <\/p>\n<p>     restriction as such.   At any rate the approach of <\/p>\n<p>     the State to take a blanket decision and cancel or <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    251<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     reject all the pending proposals, by no standards <\/p>\n<p>     can stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is a <\/p>\n<p>     clear case of arbitrary exercise of power and non <\/p>\n<p>     application   of   mind,   hit   by   Article   14   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution   of   India.   For,   each   proposal   was <\/p>\n<p>     expected to be examined on its own merits on case <\/p>\n<p>     to   case   basis   in   the   context   of   conditions   for <\/p>\n<p>     grant of recognition and not assumed authority to <\/p>\n<p>     grant permission.\n<\/p>\n<p>     62.        As   aforesaid,   the   perspective   plan   or <\/p>\n<p>     School Development Plan would be only a barometer <\/p>\n<p>     of the requirement of educational institutions to <\/p>\n<p>     be   &#8220;funded   by   the   State&#8221;   at   the   macro   level   as <\/p>\n<p>     well as micro level across the State. At the macro <\/p>\n<p>     level,   the   State   would   decide   about   the   total <\/p>\n<p>     number   of   schools   to   be   established   across   the <\/p>\n<p>     State subject to its financial capability to bear <\/p>\n<p>     the burden of grant in aid therefor. At the micro <\/p>\n<p>     level, it would be the felt need of the local area <\/p>\n<p>     (Tanda, village, Taluka, District) where free and <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory   education   is   indispensable   and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   252<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     imperative.   While   determining   the   number   of <\/p>\n<p>     schools to be established at the micro as well as <\/p>\n<p>     macro   level,   to   make   the   perspective   plan   or <\/p>\n<p>     School Development Plan  meaningful and effective, <\/p>\n<p>     it   is   expected   that   the   State   must   first <\/p>\n<p>     thoroughly   investigate   so   as   to   identify   the <\/p>\n<p>     schools  which  are receiving  grant  in  aid but  are <\/p>\n<p>     either   non   performing   or   performing   below   the <\/p>\n<p>     bench   mark   level,   either   in   terms   of <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure   or   quality   of   education   imparted <\/p>\n<p>     and   other   incidental   matters.   Now,   by   virtue   of <\/p>\n<p>     the Act of 2009, all schools established prior to <\/p>\n<p>     the   commencement   of   the   said   Act   are   obliged   to <\/p>\n<p>     fulfill   the   norms   and   standards   specified <\/p>\n<p>     interalia in Sections 25, 26 and Schedule of that <\/p>\n<p>     Act,   as   per   Section   19(2)   thereof.   The   State   is <\/p>\n<p>     expected to first weed out those schools which are <\/p>\n<p>     non  performing,  under  performing  or non-compliant <\/p>\n<p>     schools   and   upon   closure   of   such   schools,   the <\/p>\n<p>     students   and   the   teaching   and   non   teaching   staff <\/p>\n<p>     thereof should be transferred to the neighbourhood <\/p>\n<p>     school.       That   would   not   only   strengthen   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   253<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     latter   school   by   adequate   number   of   students   to <\/p>\n<p>     consolidate   the   division   and   also   impart   quality <\/p>\n<p>     education   due   to   addition   of   teaching   staff.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Needless   to   observe,   that   if   there   is   inadequate <\/p>\n<p>     response   to   the   Government   funded   school,   it   is <\/p>\n<p>     but appropriate that either the divisions thereof <\/p>\n<p>     or   the   school   itself   be   closed   and   the   students <\/p>\n<p>     and   staff   of   such   school   be   transferred   to <\/p>\n<p>     another   neighbourhood   school   by   resorting   to <\/p>\n<p>     Section   18(3)   of   the   Act   of   2009.   Only   after <\/p>\n<p>     taking such hard decisions the perspective plan or <\/p>\n<p>     the   School   Development   Plan   would   represent   the <\/p>\n<p>     correct position regarding the need of Government <\/p>\n<p>     aided schools in every locality across the State, <\/p>\n<p>     to fulfill the aspirations of the Act of 2009 to <\/p>\n<p>     provide   free   and   compulsory   quality   education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Besides,   it   will   ensure   proper   and   meaningful <\/p>\n<p>     utilisation of public funds.     If we may say so, <\/p>\n<p>     it is trite to keep in mind that right spending of <\/p>\n<p>     limited finance by the State would give impetus to <\/p>\n<p>     right education (quality education) in the schools <\/p>\n<p>     which   deserve   the   Government   aid.       Besides,   it <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   254<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     will   ensure   proper   and   meaningful   utilisation   of <\/p>\n<p>     public funds. In absence of this exercise, the end <\/p>\n<p>     result   would   be   that   on   account   of   existing   non <\/p>\n<p>     performing   or   under   performing   and   non-compliant <\/p>\n<p>     school, the perspective plan or School Development <\/p>\n<p>     Plan   would   not   reckon   that   locality   for <\/p>\n<p>     establishment   of   another   school.   If   the   State   is <\/p>\n<p>     right   in   its   stand   that   unless   additional   school <\/p>\n<p>     in the locality is permitted under the said plans, <\/p>\n<p>     no   other   school   can   be   established   in   that <\/p>\n<p>     locality; would have direct bearing on the rights <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   children   who   are   the   consumers   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     facility   of   imparting   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education   in   that   locality   to   get   quality <\/p>\n<p>     education.  For, they would be compelled to pursue <\/p>\n<p>     their   studies   in   the   non   performing   or   under <\/p>\n<p>     performing   and   non-compliant   schools.   In   other <\/p>\n<p>     words, before the final perspective plan or School <\/p>\n<p>     Development   Plan   is   finalised   by   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government   in   regard   to   schools   run   on   grant   in <\/p>\n<p>     aid   basis,   we   expect   the   State   to   examine   the <\/p>\n<p>     above position and take appropriate corrective and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   255<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     remedial steps in that behalf in right earnest. In <\/p>\n<p>     our   view,   the   State   Government,   by   resorting   to <\/p>\n<p>     the   provisions   of   Act   of   2009,   must   take <\/p>\n<p>     opportunity   to     reorganise   its   financial   outflow <\/p>\n<p>     at   the   micro   level   by   weeding   out   the   non-\n<\/p>\n<p>     performing   or   under   performing   and   non-compliant <\/p>\n<p>     schools   receiving   grant   in   aid,   so   as   to   ensure <\/p>\n<p>     that   only   such   Government   funded   Schools,   who <\/p>\n<p>     fulfill   the   norms   and   standards,   are   allowed   to <\/p>\n<p>     continue,   to   achieve   the   objective   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     enactment   &#8211;     of   not   only   providing   free   and <\/p>\n<p>     compulsory   education   to   the   children   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     neighbourhood   school   but   also   to   provide     them <\/p>\n<p>     quality   education.   The   end   product   of   such <\/p>\n<p>     exercise  would  be to  identify  the  genuine  need  &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>     be it at the micro level or macro level across the <\/p>\n<p>     State   from   all   angles,   which   will   then   be <\/p>\n<p>     reflected   in   the   perspective\/School   Development <\/p>\n<p>     Plan   and   at   the   same   time,   the   public   exchequer <\/p>\n<p>     would   be   saved   on   avoidable   expenditure   of <\/p>\n<p>     propping the  non-compliant  schools.  That is the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   256<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     power   coupled   with     duty   of   the   State,   even   in <\/p>\n<p>     terms of the Scheme of the Act of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     63.     That takes us to the argument of the State <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   experience   shows   that   the   divisions   of <\/p>\n<p>     some   of   the   existing   grant   in   aid   schools   were <\/p>\n<p>     required  to be  closed  down  and that  the existing <\/p>\n<p>     number of schools was sufficient to cope  with the <\/p>\n<p>     demand   of   students   in   the   concerned   localities.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the first place no details to substantiate this <\/p>\n<p>     plea   has   been   placed   before   us.       Besides,   the <\/p>\n<p>     counsel   appearing   for   the   Petitioners     contend <\/p>\n<p>     that this stand of the State is incorrect if not <\/p>\n<p>     misleading.   According   to   them,   the   divisions   of <\/p>\n<p>     some   of   the   aided   schools   were   required   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     closed   down   because   new   schools   were   started   in <\/p>\n<p>     the neighbourhood villages where no school was in <\/p>\n<p>     existence.   Students   from   such   villages   preferred <\/p>\n<p>     to take admissions in the newly started school in <\/p>\n<p>     their   neighbourhood   locality.   If   that   is   the <\/p>\n<p>     position, it is not open to the State to contend <\/p>\n<p>     that since the divisions of some of the grants in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   257<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     aid   schools   were   required   to   be   closed   down, <\/p>\n<p>     addition of any new school would lead to unhealthy <\/p>\n<p>     competition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     64.             As   observed   earlier,   entry   of   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   on   permanent   no   grant   basis   and <\/p>\n<p>     without receiving any kind of  Government aid, who <\/p>\n<p>     are  willing  to  abide  by the strictest  regime   and <\/p>\n<p>     terms and conditions for grant of recognition and <\/p>\n<p>     for   continuation   of   such   recognition,   would   only <\/p>\n<p>     create   an   atmosphere   of   healthy   competition <\/p>\n<p>     between   the   aided   schools   and   unaided   schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further, the children from the locality can make a <\/p>\n<p>     choice   to   opt   for   unaided   school   if   they   have <\/p>\n<p>     capacity to pay the fees or charges or expenses of <\/p>\n<p>     that school. But that would be entirely by choice <\/p>\n<p>     and not by compulsion. On the other hand, if they <\/p>\n<p>     are comfortable with the quality of education and <\/p>\n<p>     the facilities available in the Municipal or aided <\/p>\n<p>     school   itself,   there   is   no   reason     for   them   to <\/p>\n<p>     withdraw from such school and take their chance in <\/p>\n<p>     the   private   unaided   school   where   they   will   be <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    258<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     required to pay relatively high fees or charges or <\/p>\n<p>     expenses. They would do so only if they have the <\/p>\n<p>     means   to     pay   such   fees   or   charges   or   expenses <\/p>\n<p>     and are convinced that taking admission in unaided <\/p>\n<p>     school   in   their   neighbourhood   would   be   more <\/p>\n<p>     beneficial and would give them better opportunity <\/p>\n<p>     and  exposure   to become  a self  reliant  person   and <\/p>\n<p>     not be a mere potential pen-pusher.\n<\/p>\n<p>     65.        We   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   in <\/p>\n<p>     rural   areas   and   more   so   in   tribal   areas   the <\/p>\n<p>     financial   capacity   may   not   permit   the   parents   to <\/p>\n<p>     admit their children in private management schools <\/p>\n<p>     on   payment   of   fees   or   charges   or   expenses.   In   a <\/p>\n<p>     given   case,   inspite   of   the   necessity   to   have   a <\/p>\n<p>     school   in   such   locality,   if   the   perspective   or <\/p>\n<p>     School   Development   Plan   does   not   provide   for   a <\/p>\n<p>     school in such locality, there would be no school <\/p>\n<p>     in  that locality.  We  are informed  across  the  Bar <\/p>\n<p>     that according to the Petitioners, in the State of <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra   there   are   at   least   11,000   villages <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   259<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     where   no   primary   school   is   available   and   about <\/p>\n<p>     50,000   villages   where   no   secondary   school   is <\/p>\n<p>     available.   On   account   of   the   inability   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     State to establish schools in such regions due to <\/p>\n<p>     financial   constraint,   the   students   of   such <\/p>\n<p>     villages are being denied opportunity of education <\/p>\n<p>     or   are   forced   to   travel   some   distance   to   attend <\/p>\n<p>     schools   in   another   locality.   If,   in   such   places, <\/p>\n<p>     the   private   institutions   were   to   establish <\/p>\n<p>     educational   institutions   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis   and   provide   education   to   the   locals   either <\/p>\n<p>     free   of   cost   or   offer   a   package   to   them   which <\/p>\n<p>     would   be   affordable   as   any   philanthropic <\/p>\n<p>     organization or citizen with mission in life would <\/p>\n<p>     do,   there   is   no   reason   why   private   school   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent no grant basis in such a locality should <\/p>\n<p>     not   be   permitted.   Recognizing   a   private <\/p>\n<p>     institution   started   by   a   private   management   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis,   does   not   absolve   the <\/p>\n<p>     State of its constitutional obligation to provide <\/p>\n<p>     free   and   compulsory   education   in   that   locality.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In due course, subject to availability of finance, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    260<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the State can start a new grant in aid school or <\/p>\n<p>     may   consider   of   extending   grant   in   aid   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     private   management   school   or   consider   of   giving <\/p>\n<p>     subsidy   or   free   scholarship   to   the   students <\/p>\n<p>     deserving   free   and   compulsory   education.   That <\/p>\n<p>     decision   will   have   to   be   taken   on   case   to   case <\/p>\n<p>     basis   and   not   the   manner   in   which   it   has   been <\/p>\n<p>     taken   by   the   State   to   convert   large   number   of <\/p>\n<p>     schools   started   on   permanent   no   grant   basis <\/p>\n<p>     without the perspective plan to grant in aid basis <\/p>\n<p>     by   issuance   of   one   fiat.   The   justification   to <\/p>\n<p>     extend   grant   in   aid   to   large   number   of   schools <\/p>\n<p>     started  on permanent  no grant  basis    without   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan,   is   only   due   to   some   statement <\/p>\n<p>     made on affidavit before the High Court in one of <\/p>\n<p>     the Writ Petitions. We will not dilate any further <\/p>\n<p>     on   this   matter   as   we   are   not   called   upon   to <\/p>\n<p>     examine   the   legality   and   correctness   of   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     decision in the present proceedings. Suffice it to <\/p>\n<p>     observe   that   the   interests   of   the   general   public <\/p>\n<p>     would   be   subserved   by   recognizing   the   schools   to <\/p>\n<p>     be   started   by   the   deserving   private   institutions <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   261<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     on permanent no grant basis in such locality.\n<\/p>\n<p>     66.        The argument of the Respondents that the <\/p>\n<p>     private institutions exploit the students and the <\/p>\n<p>     teaching   and   non-teaching   staff,   is   an   argument <\/p>\n<p>     exposing   the   weakness   of   the   State   in   having <\/p>\n<p>     proper   and   effective   mechanism   to   regulate   and <\/p>\n<p>     control     the   private   institutions   which   are <\/p>\n<p>     started   on   permanent   no   grant   basis.   Instead   of <\/p>\n<p>     advancing   such   argument,   the   State   should   play   a <\/p>\n<p>     proactive role in setting up  permanent Regulatory <\/p>\n<p>     Authority   invested   with   the   task   of   continual <\/p>\n<p>     monitoring   of   such   institutions,   both   in   respect <\/p>\n<p>     of   infrastructure,   quality   of   education   and   also <\/p>\n<p>     matters   relating   to   the   staff   employed   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     school as well as charging of fees or charges from <\/p>\n<p>     the   students   whether   results   in   profiteering   and <\/p>\n<p>     commercialization of education so as  to deal with <\/p>\n<p>     such   acts   of   commission   and   omission   with <\/p>\n<p>     promptitude. In terms of Section 32 of the Act of <\/p>\n<p>     2009, any person having any grievance relating to<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   262<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     right of a child can make a complaint which has to <\/p>\n<p>     be disposed of within &#8220;three months&#8221;. In addition, <\/p>\n<p>     the   responsibility   to   monitor   child&#8217;s   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     education is on the Commissions established under <\/p>\n<p>     the   provisions   of   the   Commissions   for   Protection <\/p>\n<p>     of Child Rights Act 2005, by virtue of Section 31 <\/p>\n<p>     of the Act of 2009.   There is need to revitalize <\/p>\n<p>     this   machinery   if   already   in   place   to   address <\/p>\n<p>     these aspects. ig<\/p>\n<p>     67.       What   is   required   to   be   addressed   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   Government   is   to   not   only   focus   on   the <\/p>\n<p>     strict   norms   and   standards   for   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition,   but   equally   on   strict   regime   for <\/p>\n<p>     ensuring   that   the   conditions   imposed   are   being <\/p>\n<p>     complied  in its  letter  and  spirit  by the  private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   run   on   permanent   no   grant   basis, <\/p>\n<p>     failing   which   steps   to   withdraw   recognition   of <\/p>\n<p>     that   school   should   be   resorted   to   with   utmost <\/p>\n<p>     dispatch.   While   providing   for   mechanism   to   keep <\/p>\n<p>     complete tab on the requirements of infrastructure <\/p>\n<p>     and quality education as also to provide security <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    263<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     to staff employed in such institution and related <\/p>\n<p>     issues as well as to ensure that the said private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   do   not   indulge   in   profiteering   and <\/p>\n<p>     commercialization,   may   if              thought   proper, <\/p>\n<p>     consider of imposing conditions in addition to the <\/p>\n<p>     conditions specified in Sections 19, 25 read with <\/p>\n<p>     Schedule   of   the   Act   of   2009   and   provisions   of <\/p>\n<p>     Rules   3   to   7   of   the   Secondary   School   Code,   such <\/p>\n<p>     as;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (i)     No   exploitation   of   staff   and   of   mandatory <\/p>\n<p>     requirement   to   pay     the   monthly   salary   only <\/p>\n<p>     through the nominated bank account.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)   The   management   of   unaided   school   should   be <\/p>\n<p>     asked to set apart sufficient amount in advance to <\/p>\n<p>     secure   the   full   salary   and   emoluments   for   a <\/p>\n<p>     specified   period     of   the   entire   staff   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     employed   by   the   school,   to   be   invested   in   an <\/p>\n<p>     escrow   account   of   which   the   Education   Officer <\/p>\n<p>     should be made signatory and authorized to operate <\/p>\n<p>     the same  in case of exigency.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   264<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (iii)  The management should be made to deposit at <\/p>\n<p>     least   an   amount   equivalent   to   one   term   (half <\/p>\n<p>     year&#8217;s)   tuition   fees   to   be   collected   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     unaided     school   from   the   prospective   students <\/p>\n<p>     permitted   to   be   admitted   in   the   school   and   that <\/p>\n<p>     amount   to   be   invested   in   an   escrow   account   of <\/p>\n<p>     which   the   Education   Officer   should   be   made <\/p>\n<p>     signatory   and   authorized   to   operate   that   account <\/p>\n<p>     in case of exigency.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (iv) Strict   compliance   about   the   basic <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure   specified   in   the   Schedule   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     Act   of   2009   including   regarding   building, <\/p>\n<p>     playground, electricity\/permanent D.G. Set or such <\/p>\n<p>     other   device   to   generate   alternative   energy, <\/p>\n<p>     Library,   proper   furniture   and   fixtures,   sports <\/p>\n<p>     equipments   etc.,   security,   school   transport, <\/p>\n<p>     drinking   water   and   proper   hygiene   commensurate <\/p>\n<p>     with the strength of the students of the school.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    265<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (v)     Commercialization   or   profiteering   should   be <\/p>\n<p>     eschewed and there should be zero tolerance level <\/p>\n<p>     in   that   behalf.   (There   should   be   a   permanent <\/p>\n<p>     Regulatory   Authority   constituted   for   timely <\/p>\n<p>     resolution of such grievance.     That is necessary <\/p>\n<p>     even   in   the   context   of   Maharashtra   Educational <\/p>\n<p>     Institutions  (Prohibition  of Capitation  Fee)  Act, <\/p>\n<p>     1987).\n<\/p>\n<p>     (vi)       Provide   for   transparency   and   fairness   in <\/p>\n<p>     admission   procedure.     The   same   is   adhered   to   in <\/p>\n<p>     compliance   of   Sections   13   and   15   of   the   Act   of <\/p>\n<p>     2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (vii)         Require the private management &#8211; until <\/p>\n<p>     the   school   to   be   established   by   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management   is     recognized,     to   &#8220;prominently&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     display on its web site, school board, pamphlets, <\/p>\n<p>     receipts,   bills   and   letter   heads   and   all   other <\/p>\n<p>     official   documents   that   it   is   not   a   recognized <\/p>\n<p>     school.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    266<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     68. These   are   some   of   the   measures   which   if <\/p>\n<p>     followed,   would   subserve   the   interests   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     general   public.   The   above   stated     condition   Nos.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (ii)   and   (iii)   would   ensure   that   the   fly   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     night schools are not allowed to start even though <\/p>\n<p>     they   may   intend   to   do   so   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     69. The   learned   Government   Pleader   for   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     has placed emphasis on the decision in the case of <\/p>\n<p>     Gramvikas   Shikshan   Prasarak   Mandal   (supra)    to <\/p>\n<p>     justify the impugned action of cancellation of all <\/p>\n<p>     the proposals pertaining to Marathi medium school <\/p>\n<p>     in   absence   of   perspective   plan.   In   the   first <\/p>\n<p>     place,   we   are   in   agreement   with   the   argument   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitioners   that   the   said   Judgment   is   mere <\/p>\n<p>     restatement of the policy and scheme formulated by <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   and   as   modified   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n<p>     suggestions   made   by   the   Court.   No   more   and   no <\/p>\n<p>     less.  Secondly,  we  find force  in  the argument  of <\/p>\n<p>     the   Petitioners   that   assuming   the   said   decision <\/p>\n<p>     was   to   be   treated   as   a   binding   precedent   on   the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   267<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     question   that   no   private   management   can   be <\/p>\n<p>     permitted   to   start   a   school   in   absence   of   a <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan even if it was to be started on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis;   that   opinion   has   been <\/p>\n<p>     impliedly over-ruled by the Apex Court in the case <\/p>\n<p>     of   Superstar Education Society (supra). In that, <\/p>\n<p>     relying   on   the   former   decision,   another   Division <\/p>\n<p>     Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1711513\/\">Maharashtra  <\/p>\n<p>     Rajya   Shikshan   Sanstha   Mahamandal   vs.   State   of <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra and others<\/a>, 2006 (6) Bom.C.R. Page 139 <\/p>\n<p>     had   quashed   and   set   aside   permissions   granted   to <\/p>\n<p>     as many as 1495 new primary, secondary and higher <\/p>\n<p>     secondary   schools   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra <\/p>\n<p>     granted   for   the   academic   session   2006-2007   in <\/p>\n<p>     absence   of   a   perspective   plan.   However,   the   Apex <\/p>\n<p>     Court   in   the   case   of  Superstar   Education  Society  <\/p>\n<p>     (supra), reversed that view and unambiguously held <\/p>\n<p>     that non existence of a perspective plan does not <\/p>\n<p>     bar  grant  of permission  to  schools.  In  any case, <\/p>\n<p>     for   the   reasons   mentioned   earlier   and   more <\/p>\n<p>     particularly, in the context of the exposition of <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   268<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the     Constitution   Bench   of   the   Apex   Court   in <\/p>\n<p>     T.M.A.   Pai   (supra)    and   the   enactment   of   Act   of <\/p>\n<p>     2009,    the   issue   will   have   to   be   considered   in <\/p>\n<p>     entirely different perspective. For, by now it is <\/p>\n<p>     well   established   position   that   to   establish   and <\/p>\n<p>     start an educational institution is a fundamental <\/p>\n<p>     right   which   can   only   be   regulated   by   imposing <\/p>\n<p>     reasonable   restrictions   and   in   the   interests   of <\/p>\n<p>     the general public. Besides, we have already taken <\/p>\n<p>     the   view   that   the   perspective   plan   has   relevance <\/p>\n<p>     only   in   relation   to   the   schools,   which   would <\/p>\n<p>     receive   grant   in   aid   from   the   State   or   are <\/p>\n<p>     Government   funded   schools.   That   perspective   plan <\/p>\n<p>     cannot   whittle   down   the   fundamental   right   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     private management to establish an unaided school <\/p>\n<p>     of their choice, even if they were to fulfill all <\/p>\n<p>     the   mandatory   requirements   to   impart   quality <\/p>\n<p>     education   and   secure   the   interests   of   the   stake <\/p>\n<p>     holders in that school and abide by the regime of <\/p>\n<p>     no   profiteering   and   no   commercialization.     The <\/p>\n<p>     Government  would  have no  option  but to grant <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:48 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  269<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     recognition or affiliation to start such school on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent no grant basis and without receiving any <\/p>\n<p>     other   aid   from   the   Government.   In   the <\/p>\n<p>     circumstances, the decision in  Gramvikas Shikshan  <\/p>\n<p>     Prasarak  Mandal  (supra),  would  be  of no avail  to <\/p>\n<p>     the State to answer the controversy on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>     70.       Our   attention   was   also   invited   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1780573\/\">Vidarbha   Sikshan  <\/p>\n<p>     Vyawasthapak Mahasangh vs. State of Maharashtra and  <\/p>\n<p>     others<\/a>,1986   (4)   Supreme   Court   Cases,   Page   361  to <\/p>\n<p>     contend that if the view which we intend to take was <\/p>\n<p>     to prevail, it would lead to a chaotic situation as <\/p>\n<p>     there will be excessive schools than the number of <\/p>\n<p>     students   available.   We   have   already   rejected   this <\/p>\n<p>     argument   being   devoid   of   merits.   The   argument <\/p>\n<p>     proceeds on the assumption that there will be a mad <\/p>\n<p>     rush for opening of unaided educational institutions <\/p>\n<p>     throughout the State, which may result in unhealthy <\/p>\n<p>     competition and unregulated situation. The argument <\/p>\n<p>     clearly   overlooks   that   no   private   management   or <\/p>\n<p>     entrepreneur would   venture into  an   occupation<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     270<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       which   is   unviable   and   in   any   case   would   not   be <\/p>\n<p>     able   to   sustain   for   a   long   if   that   situation <\/p>\n<p>     prevails except that the said activity is mission <\/p>\n<p>     in his life. In any case this apprehension will be <\/p>\n<p>     adressed by imposing strict conditions at the time <\/p>\n<p>     of grant of recognition. Notably, in terms of Rule <\/p>\n<p>     4.1   of   the   Secondary   Schools   Code,   only <\/p>\n<p>     provisional recognition from year to year basis is <\/p>\n<p>     granted   for   first   four   years   by   the   appropriate <\/p>\n<p>     Authority   on   fulfillment     of   the   conditions   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.   And   only   on   completion   of   period   of <\/p>\n<p>     five years, the School is considered for grant of <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   recognition.   Thus,   there   is   inbuilt <\/p>\n<p>     mechanism   provided   to   ensure   that   only   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     which   would   impart   quality   education   and   comply <\/p>\n<p>     with   the   essential   norms   and   standards   and <\/p>\n<p>     conditions   for   grant   of   recognition   would <\/p>\n<p>     continue to function.\n<\/p>\n<p>     71. We are conscious of the fact that on account <\/p>\n<p>     of   inadequate   response,   the   newly   started   school <\/p>\n<p>     may close down with the result, the students   in <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    271<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   said   school   will   have   to   be   absorbed   in <\/p>\n<p>     another   recognized   school,   but   that   would   be   the <\/p>\n<p>     evolving   process   of   consolidation   of   unaided <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   which   are   able   to   compete   and <\/p>\n<p>     sustain   on   its   own   and   at   the   same   time   impart <\/p>\n<p>     quality education to the students in the locality.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The apprehension of disastrous   situation arising <\/p>\n<p>     on   account   of   closure   of   the   school   also   can   be <\/p>\n<p>     addressed if the State were to impose restrictions <\/p>\n<p>     as   condition   for   grant   of   recognition,   as <\/p>\n<p>     indicated   by   us   earlier,   so   as   to   avoid <\/p>\n<p>     exploitation   of   staff   and   students.     Insofar   as <\/p>\n<p>     the apprehension of students becoming surplus due <\/p>\n<p>     to   closure   of   school,   clearly   overlooks   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     students from the said school can be accommodated <\/p>\n<p>     in   a   neighbourhood   recognized   school   either <\/p>\n<p>     unaided or aided as the case may be. As it is the <\/p>\n<p>     primary   obligation   of   the   State   to   ensure <\/p>\n<p>     education to children between the age of 6 to 14 <\/p>\n<p>     years,   such   absorption   would   be   ascribable   to <\/p>\n<p>     that   obligation.   If   the   State   were   to   impose <\/p>\n<p>     precondition   of   depositing     one   term   (half <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    272<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     year&#8217;s)  tuition  fees  of all  the students  of that <\/p>\n<p>     school   in   the   escrow   account   of   which   the <\/p>\n<p>     Education   Officer   would   be   the     signatory   and <\/p>\n<p>     authorized to operate in case of exigency, he can <\/p>\n<p>     direct   transfer   of   commensurate   amount   or   fees <\/p>\n<p>     received   from   such   transferee   students   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     school   to the school   to which  the students  would <\/p>\n<p>     be   transferred   and   admitted   to   pursue   their <\/p>\n<p>     further   education.   In   that   case,   the   school   to <\/p>\n<p>     which   such   students   are   transferred   can   have   no <\/p>\n<p>     grievance   whatsoever   and   in   fact   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     benefited   by   getting   more   number   of   students   and <\/p>\n<p>     of wind fall gain of commensurate tuition fees. In <\/p>\n<p>     a   given   case   the   State   may   have   to   consider   of <\/p>\n<p>     permitting     the   transferee   school   to   open <\/p>\n<p>     additional   division(s)   or   relax   the   number   of <\/p>\n<p>     students in the available division. Similarly, the <\/p>\n<p>     sufficient   deposit   of   advance   amount   towards   the <\/p>\n<p>     salary of the entire staff, may come in handy to <\/p>\n<p>     atleast partly redress the financial claim of the <\/p>\n<p>     staff of the derecognised unaided school.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    273<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     72.        The   learned   Government   Pleader   placed <\/p>\n<p>     emphasis   on   the   dictum   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/768764\/\">Case   of  Ugar   Sugar   Works   Ltd.   vs.   Delhi  <\/p>\n<p>     Administration and others<\/a>, 2001 (3) Supreme Court  <\/p>\n<p>     Cases, Page 635, in particular Paragraph Nos. 16, <\/p>\n<p>     17,   22   and   23   to   justify   the   policy   decision   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   as   reflected   in   the   Government <\/p>\n<p>     Resolution   dated   20th   July,   2009.   The   Apex   Court <\/p>\n<p>     observed that there is no fundamental right under <\/p>\n<p>     Article   19(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution   to   carry   on <\/p>\n<p>     trade   in   liquor   and   that   the   State   has   power   to <\/p>\n<p>     formulate its own policy regarding such trade. The <\/p>\n<p>     observations   in   this   decision   as   is   pressed   into <\/p>\n<p>     service     are   inapposite.     The   claim   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners that they have fundamental right under <\/p>\n<p>     Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to establish <\/p>\n<p>     an   educational   institution   on   permanent   no   grant <\/p>\n<p>     basis,   is   now   squarely   answered   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution Bench Decision in T.M.A. Pai (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Reliance   was   placed   on   the   decision   in  Dhampur  <\/p>\n<p>     Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. vs. State of Uttaranchal and <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    274<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     others, 2007(8) Supreme Court Cases, Page 418, in <\/p>\n<p>     particular   Paragraph   Nos.   52,   62,   63   and   66   to <\/p>\n<p>     contend  that  the scope  of judicial  review  of  the <\/p>\n<p>     policy of the State is circumscribed.  The learned <\/p>\n<p>     Government Pleader was at pains to persuade us to <\/p>\n<p>     take   the   view   that   the   restrictions   provided   in <\/p>\n<p>     the Secondary Schools Code are in the interests of <\/p>\n<p>     the general public.   To buttress this submission, <\/p>\n<p>     reliance   was   placed   on   the   dictum   of   the   Apex <\/p>\n<p>     Court in Paragraph 16 in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1014138\/\">Directorate  <\/p>\n<p>     of   Film   Festivals   and   others   vs.   Gaurav   Ashwin  <\/p>\n<p>     Jain and others<\/a>, 2007(4) Supreme Court Cases, Page <\/p>\n<p>     737, wherein the Court has noted that the scope of <\/p>\n<p>     judicial   review   while   examining   a   policy   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   is   to   check   whether   it   violates   the <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental   rights   of   the   citizens   or   is   opposed <\/p>\n<p>     to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed <\/p>\n<p>     to   any   statutory   provision   or   manifestly <\/p>\n<p>     arbitrary.   Courts   cannot   interfere   with   policy <\/p>\n<p>     either   on   the   ground   that   it   is   erroneous   or   on <\/p>\n<p>     the   ground   that   a   better,   fairer   or   wiser <\/p>\n<p>     alternative is available. We have already <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   275<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     indicated   reasons   as   to   why   restriction   of <\/p>\n<p>     obtaining   prior   permission   to   establish   a   school <\/p>\n<p>     on   permanent   no   grant   basis   violates   the <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental   rights   of   the   Petitioners   and <\/p>\n<p>     similarly   placed   persons   on   the   touchstone     of <\/p>\n<p>     Article 19(1)(g).\n<\/p>\n<p>     73.        The   next   argument   that   needs   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     addressed   is,   can   the   State   discriminate   between <\/p>\n<p>     the management intending to open unaided school on <\/p>\n<p>     the basis of language e.g., Marathi, Urdu, Hindi, <\/p>\n<p>     English, Gujarathi  etc. The policy adopted by the <\/p>\n<p>     State   is   that   no   new   &#8220;Marathi   school&#8221;   will   be <\/p>\n<p>     permitted   until   the   finalization   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan. We are informed that as many as <\/p>\n<p>     842   new   schools   to   impart   education   in   mediums <\/p>\n<p>     other   than   Marathi   medium   have   been   permitted   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   after   issuance   of   the   impugned <\/p>\n<p>     Government   Resolution   dated   20th   July,   2009.   The <\/p>\n<p>     necessity  of preparing  perspective plan arose in<\/p>\n<p>     the  context of the policy of the State which has<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    276<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     been   restated   in   the   decision   of  Gram   Vikas <\/p>\n<p>     Shikshan   Prasarak   Mandal   (supra).  Although   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   was   to   be   prepared   and   brought <\/p>\n<p>     into force immediately, the same has not seen the <\/p>\n<p>     light   of   the   day   since   year   2000.   Even   now   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   has   asked   for   further   six   months   time   as <\/p>\n<p>     noted   in   the   order   dated   11th   January,   2010   in <\/p>\n<p>     Writ Petition No.8992 of 2009. However, even after <\/p>\n<p>     the   decision   in  Gram   Vikas   Shikshan   Prasarak  <\/p>\n<p>     Mandal   (supra)  in   2000,   till   the   year   2006   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   Government   kept   on   granting   permissions   to <\/p>\n<p>     private   institutions   to   start   primary,   secondary <\/p>\n<p>     and higher secondary schools including in Marathi <\/p>\n<p>     medium   on   permanent   no   grant   basis   to <\/p>\n<p>     substantially large number of private institutions <\/p>\n<p>     i.e.   about   1495   institutions.   Besides   the   number <\/p>\n<p>     of   private   institutions   involved   in   the   said <\/p>\n<p>     decision,   it   is   common   ground   that   some   more <\/p>\n<p>     private   institutions   which   is   substantial   in <\/p>\n<p>     number,   were   allowed   to   start   Marathi   medium <\/p>\n<p>     schools after 31st May, 2006 even though there was <\/p>\n<p>     no   perspective   plan   in   place.   However,   that   was <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  277<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     under  the  Orders  of the  Court.  That  State  action <\/p>\n<p>     was put in issue in the case of Maharashtra Rajya  <\/p>\n<p>     Shikshan   Sanstha   Mahamandal   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra   and   others,   reported   in   2006(6)  <\/p>\n<p>     Bom.C.R.   Page   139.   This   decision,   however,   has <\/p>\n<p>     since  been reversed by the Apex Court in the case <\/p>\n<p>     of    <a href=\"\/doc\/614839\/\">Superstar   Education   Society   vs.   State   of <\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra   and   others<\/a>,   reported   in   2008(3)  <\/p>\n<p>     Supreme  Court  Cases,  Page  315. In paragraph  8 of <\/p>\n<p>     the  said  decision,   the Apex  Court  has noted  that <\/p>\n<p>     the   objects   of   regulating   permissions   for   new <\/p>\n<p>     private schools are:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;(i)   to   ensure   that   they   have<br \/>\n               the requisite infrastructure,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (ii)   to   avoid   unhealthy<br \/>\n               competition   among   educational<br \/>\n               institutions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (iii)   to   subject   the   private<br \/>\n               institutions   seeking   entry   in<br \/>\n               the   field   of   education   to   such<br \/>\n               restrictions   and   regulatory <\/p>\n<p>               requirements, so as to maintain<br \/>\n               standards of education;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (iv)   to   promote   and   safeguard<br \/>\n               the   interests   of   students,<br \/>\n               teachers and education; and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   278<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                (v)   to   provide   access   to   basic<br \/>\n                education   to   all   sections   of<br \/>\n                society,   in   particular   the <\/p>\n<p>                poorer and weaker sections; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                (vi)   to   avoid   concentration   of <\/p>\n<p>                schools   only   in   certain   areas<br \/>\n                and   to   ensure   that   they   are<br \/>\n                evenly spread so as to cater to<br \/>\n                the   requirements   of   different <\/p>\n<p>                areas   and   regions   and   to   all<br \/>\n                sections of society.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     74.        In   paragraph   9   as   well   as   12   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     decision   in  Superstar   Education   Society   (supra), <\/p>\n<p>     the  Court  has observed  that  non formulation  of a <\/p>\n<p>     master   plan does  not  bar the  grant  of permission <\/p>\n<p>     to schools before the master plan was finalized.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As   mentioned   earlier,   the   only   distinguishing <\/p>\n<p>     feature for treating Marathi medium different than <\/p>\n<p>     the other mediums is that there are enough number <\/p>\n<p>     of schools imparting education in Marathi medium.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This   is   a   very   wide,     vague   and   unsubstantiated <\/p>\n<p>     assumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>     75.   Assuming  that   requirement   of  perspective  or <\/p>\n<p>     School Development Plan should be the quintessence <\/p>\n<p>     for considering the proposals of even the private <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   279<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     management to establish an unaided school, whether <\/p>\n<p>     there was felt need in that locality in absence of <\/p>\n<p>     a perspective plan, could be answered on the basis <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   subjective   satisfaction   of   the   committees <\/p>\n<p>     at the District level and the State level as has <\/p>\n<p>     been   done   in   the   case   of   other   mediums.   Thus <\/p>\n<p>     understood,   the   policy   of   the   State   to   totally <\/p>\n<p>     prevent   opening   of   new   Marathi   Medium   Schools <\/p>\n<p>     including   unaided   Schools,   throughout   the   State, <\/p>\n<p>     results  in discrimination  amongst  the managements <\/p>\n<p>     on   the   basis   of   language.   There   is   no   rationale <\/p>\n<p>     behind   the   policy   as   to   why   the   same   parameter <\/p>\n<p>     cannot   be   applied   to   &#8220;Marathi   medium&#8221;   schools   as <\/p>\n<p>     in  the case  of other  mediums,  of considering   the <\/p>\n<p>     recommendation   of   the   local   committees   at   the <\/p>\n<p>     District level and State level. On the other hand, <\/p>\n<p>     a   blanket   decision   is   taken   that   no   new   Marathi <\/p>\n<p>     medium   school   will   be   permitted   to   be   opened   in <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   until   the   finalization   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan.   Such   decision   is   not   only <\/p>\n<p>     arbitrary and discriminatory but also suffers from <\/p>\n<p>     the vice of non application of mind. Such blanket <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   280<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     decision, in any case, cannot be sustained if the <\/p>\n<p>     report   regarding   no   secondary   schools   in   50,000 <\/p>\n<p>     villages and no primary schools in 11,000 villages <\/p>\n<p>     through   out   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   is   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     accepted as it is.\n<\/p>\n<p>     76.        The   argument   of   discrimination   is   also <\/p>\n<p>     advanced   in   the   context   of   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     restriction regarding pre-existence of perspective <\/p>\n<p>     plan   is   not   applicable   insofar   as   Marathi   Medium <\/p>\n<p>     schools to be started   by the local Authority. No <\/p>\n<p>     doubt the primary obligation to start a new school <\/p>\n<p>     is on the local Authority and it can be presumed <\/p>\n<p>     unless   proved   to   be   contrary,   that   the   local <\/p>\n<p>     Authority   has   taken   conscious   decision   to   start <\/p>\n<p>     such new school keeping in mind the felt need of <\/p>\n<p>     that   locality   to   provide   free   and   compulsory <\/p>\n<p>     education. Even so, the question whether there is <\/p>\n<p>     already   existing   school   and   whether   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     Government in its perspective plan has identified <\/p>\n<p>     that   locality   for   the   purpose   of   establishing   a <\/p>\n<p>     new school to be funded from the public exchequer, <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   281<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     remains   unanswered.   Notably,   non-existence   of <\/p>\n<p>     perspective   plan   is   the   only   test   applied   to <\/p>\n<p>     justify the policy decision of the State to cancel <\/p>\n<p>     or   reject   all   the   proposals   of   Marathi   Medium <\/p>\n<p>     Schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     77.        As aforesaid, if the two local committees <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   State   have   recommended   opening   of   a   new <\/p>\n<p>     unaided   Marathi   medium   school   in   the   locality, <\/p>\n<p>     there   can   be   no   justification   for   rejecting   the <\/p>\n<p>     proposal of such institution, who would otherwise <\/p>\n<p>     fulfill   the   necessary   requirements   for   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition.   The   fact   that   the   District   level   as <\/p>\n<p>     well   as   State   level   committee   has   recommended <\/p>\n<p>     opening   of   a   new   Marathi   medium   school   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     locality   and   in   particular,   the   proposal   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     concerned school, presupposes that- (i) there is a <\/p>\n<p>     felt need of establishing a Marathi Medium School <\/p>\n<p>     in   that   locality;   (ii)   the   proposal   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     concerned   management   fulfills   the   necessary <\/p>\n<p>     requirements   for   grant   of   permission.   (iii)   the <\/p>\n<p>     locality   needs   to   be   included   in   the   perspective <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    282<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     plan; (iv) In case the perspective plan exists and <\/p>\n<p>     the   given   locality   is   not   included   therein,     it <\/p>\n<p>     would   mean   that   the   Government   is   unable   to <\/p>\n<p>     fulfill the need of that locality due to financial <\/p>\n<p>     constraints.     Rejection   of   even   such   proposal   by <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   would   necessarily   suffer   from   the   vice <\/p>\n<p>     of   arbitrary   action   and   non   application   of   mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At   any   rate,     at   least   the   proposals   of   private <\/p>\n<p>     management for starting an unaided school with no <\/p>\n<p>     aid   from   the   Government   whatsoever,   which   have <\/p>\n<p>     been   recommended   by   the   District   level   committee <\/p>\n<p>     as well as the State level committee, ought to be <\/p>\n<p>     considered by the State Government on case to case <\/p>\n<p>     basis,     even   in   relation   to   Marathi   medium <\/p>\n<p>     schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     78.        According   to   the   Petitioners,   the <\/p>\n<p>     impugned   Government   Resolution   suffers   from   non <\/p>\n<p>     application   of   mind   also   on   the   ground   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     title   of   the   Resolution   would   suggest   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   intended   to   take   a   policy   decision   of <\/p>\n<p>     converting   the   permanent   no   grant   basis   primary <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:49 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     283<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     schools   and   primary   (excluding   English   medium) <\/p>\n<p>     schools   to   grant   in   aid   basis.   But,   without <\/p>\n<p>     indicating   any   basis,   the   Resolution   concludes <\/p>\n<p>     with   the   decision   that   all   the   proposals   for <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi   medium   schools   stand   cancelled   and   no <\/p>\n<p>     request   for   starting   Marathi   medium   school   would <\/p>\n<p>     be   considered   till   the   finalization   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan.\n<\/p>\n<p>     79.   Considering   the   above,   in   our   opinion,   the <\/p>\n<p>     impugned   Resolution   and   the   policy   of   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     articulated         therein,         is           illegal                and <\/p>\n<p>     unconstitutional.   We   hold   that   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     management intending to start schools on permanent <\/p>\n<p>     no   grant   basis,   have   a   fundamental   right   to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   such   schools,   subject,   however,   on <\/p>\n<p>     fulfilling the conditions for grant of recognition <\/p>\n<p>     of such schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>     80.        We have already noticed that in the reply <\/p>\n<p>     affidavit   filed   before   this   Court,   several   other <\/p>\n<p>     issues   have   been   raised   by   the   State   to   justify <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   284<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     its   action   of   rejection   of   all   the   pending <\/p>\n<p>     proposals   relating   to   Marathi   medium   schools.   It <\/p>\n<p>     is   unnecessary   to   dilate   on   the   said   issues <\/p>\n<p>     considering   the   fact   that   the   decision   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     State,   which   is   subject   matter   of   challenge   in <\/p>\n<p>     this Petition, is Government Resolution dated 20th <\/p>\n<p>     July,   2009.   The   State   cannot   be   permitted   to <\/p>\n<p>     enlarge the grounds which do not form part of the <\/p>\n<p>     said   decision.   In   the   decision   which   is   impugned <\/p>\n<p>     before   us,   the   sole   ground   stated   as   can   be <\/p>\n<p>     discerned from Paragraph 6 and 7 thereof,  is that <\/p>\n<p>     a   comprehensive   (perspective)   plan   will   be <\/p>\n<p>     prepared and the request for permissions to start <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi   medium   schools   would   be   taken   for <\/p>\n<p>     consideration   only   thereafter.   The   substance   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   reason   is   that   in   absence   of   a   perspective <\/p>\n<p>     plan,   no   proposal   pertaining   to   starting   of <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi medium school can be considered. Hence all <\/p>\n<p>     those   proposals   were   cancelled.   Any   other   reason <\/p>\n<p>     stated   on   behalf   of   the   State   in   the   reply <\/p>\n<p>     affidavit   cannot   be   looked   into   as   it   is   well <\/p>\n<p>     established   position   that   when   a   statutory <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    285<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     functionary   makes   an   order   based   on   certain <\/p>\n<p>     grounds,   its   validity   must   be   judged   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by <\/p>\n<p>     fresh   reasons   in   the   shape   of   affidavit   or <\/p>\n<p>     otherwise; else an order bad in the beginning may, <\/p>\n<p>     by   the   time   it   comes   to   Court   on   account   of   a <\/p>\n<p>     challenge,   may     get   validated   by   additional <\/p>\n<p>     grounds later brought out (See Mohinder Singh Gill  <\/p>\n<p>     and   another   vs.   The   Chief   Election   Commissioner,  <\/p>\n<p>     New   Delhi   and   others,   (1978)   1   Supreme   Court  <\/p>\n<p>     Cases, Page 405, Para-8).\n<\/p>\n<p>     81.        That   takes   us   to   the   another   shade   of <\/p>\n<p>     argument   of   the   Petitioners   that   the   decision   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   State   Government   is   hit   by   principles   of <\/p>\n<p>     estoppel. It is the case of the Petitioners before <\/p>\n<p>     us   that   on   the   basis   of   invitation   given   to   the <\/p>\n<p>     private  managements  to  apply  on the basis  of  the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   circular   dated   29th   July,   2008,   they <\/p>\n<p>     applied to the appropriate Authority for grant of <\/p>\n<p>     permission   to   start   Marathi   medium   school   on <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;permanent   no   grant   basis&#8221;.   Besides,   they   have <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    286<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     already   invested   substantial   amount   in   creating <\/p>\n<p>     the   necessary   infrastructure   such   as   building, <\/p>\n<p>     furnitures,   fixtures   etc.   In   other   words,   they <\/p>\n<p>     have  acted  to their  disadvantage  on the  basis  of <\/p>\n<p>     the   promise   expressed   through   the   Government <\/p>\n<p>     circular dated 29th July, 2008 that they would be <\/p>\n<p>     permitted   to   start   Marathi   medium   school   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis   subject   to   complying <\/p>\n<p>     necessary   formalities.   To   buttress   this <\/p>\n<p>     contention,   reliance   is   placed   on   the   exposition <\/p>\n<p>     in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/871220\/\">M\/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills  <\/p>\n<p>     Co.   Ltd.   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   others<\/a>,  <\/p>\n<p>     1979(2)   S.C.C.   Page   409.   In   the   first   place,   if <\/p>\n<p>     this   Court   were   to   hold   that   there   is   no <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental right available to the Petitioners to <\/p>\n<p>     establish   a   Marathi   medium   school   and   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     provisions   of   the   Secondary   Schools   Code   and   Act <\/p>\n<p>     and   Rules   of   1949   would   prevail,   it   would <\/p>\n<p>     necessarily follow that the Petitioners cannot be <\/p>\n<p>     heard   to   invoke   promissory   estoppel.   For,   there <\/p>\n<p>     can  be no estoppel  against   the law.  However,   for <\/p>\n<p>     the view we have taken that the Petitioners have a <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   287<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     fundamental   right   to   establish   a   school   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent   no   grant   basis   without   requiring   to <\/p>\n<p>     obtain prior permission under Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of <\/p>\n<p>     the code or Rule 106 of the Rules of 1949, it is <\/p>\n<p>     not   necessary   to   dilate   further   on   this   issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Indeed,   as   we   have   observed   earlier   that   if   the <\/p>\n<p>     management        were       to        provide             mandatory <\/p>\n<p>     infrastructure   and   abide   by   the   regime   of   no <\/p>\n<p>     profiteering   and   no   commercialization   as   also <\/p>\n<p>     secure   the   interests   of   the   employees,   the   State <\/p>\n<p>     would have no option but to accord recognition to <\/p>\n<p>     such   schools.     If   there   was   any   deficiency   with <\/p>\n<p>     regard   to   such   mandatory   requirements,   the <\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners   cannot   be   heard   to   complain   of <\/p>\n<p>     promissory   estoppel  as  it is well  settled  by  now <\/p>\n<p>     that   the   fundamental   right   to   establish <\/p>\n<p>     educational institution need not be confused with <\/p>\n<p>     the right to ask for recognition or affiliation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     82.        To sum up, we conclude that:\n<\/p>\n<p>     (a)  Right to establish an educational institution <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    288<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     of   its   choice   on   permanent   no   grant   basis,   is   a <\/p>\n<p>     fundamental   right   guaranteed   to   all   the   citizens <\/p>\n<p>     within   the   meaning   of   Article   19(1)(g)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (b)   That   fundamental   right,   however,   cannot   be <\/p>\n<p>     confused with the right to ask for recognition of <\/p>\n<p>     the School.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (c)  The proposals for recognition of the school to <\/p>\n<p>     be   established   by   the   private   management   on <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;permanent   no   grant   basis   and   not   receiving   any <\/p>\n<p>     other   aid   whatsoever&#8221;   from   the   Government,   will <\/p>\n<p>     henceforth   have   to   fulfill   the     conditions <\/p>\n<p>     specified, amongst others,  in Sections 12, 19, 25 <\/p>\n<p>     read with Schedule of the Act of 2009 and of the <\/p>\n<p>     Rule   3.2   of   the   Code   (for   Secondary\/Higher <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary School) or Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949 <\/p>\n<p>     (for Primary School), as the case may be, and also <\/p>\n<p>     in the recognition order itself.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   289<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (d)  Indeed, it will be open to the State to impose <\/p>\n<p>     strictest   terms   and   conditions   including,   inter-\n<\/p>\n<p>     alia,   mentioned   by   us   in   Paragraph   67   above, <\/p>\n<p>     fulfillment   whereof   can   be   made   precondition   for <\/p>\n<p>     grant of recognition and continuation thereof, by <\/p>\n<p>     the  private  schools  to be established  and run  on <\/p>\n<p>     no   grant   in   aid   basis   and   without   receiving   any <\/p>\n<p>     other   aid   whatsoever   from   the   Government.   The <\/p>\n<p>     terms   and   conditions,   however,   will   have   to   be <\/p>\n<p>     reasonable   restrictions   and   in   the   interests   of <\/p>\n<p>     the general public.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (e)  The   unaided   Schools   so   established   and <\/p>\n<p>     recognised   will   be   obliged   to   admit   specified <\/p>\n<p>     percentage   of   children   in   the   neighbourhood <\/p>\n<p>     belonging   to   weaker   section   and   disadvantaged <\/p>\n<p>     group   and   provide   free   and   compulsory   elementary <\/p>\n<p>     education to them till its completion, as per the <\/p>\n<p>     mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (f)  The   unaided   schools,   however,   would   be <\/p>\n<p>     entitled only for reimbursement of the expenditure <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    290<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     incurred   by   it   to   the   extent   of   per-child-\n<\/p>\n<p>     expenditure   incurred   by   the   State,   or   the   actual <\/p>\n<p>     amount charged from the child, whichever is less, <\/p>\n<p>     in such manner as may be prescribed, in terms of <\/p>\n<p>     Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (g)   These   unaided   schools   after   grant   of <\/p>\n<p>     recognition cannot stake claim for grants in aid, <\/p>\n<p>     or any other kind of aid from the Government, at a <\/p>\n<p>     later point of time, as a matter of right.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (h)   Initially   provisional   recognition   shall   be <\/p>\n<p>     granted   to   the   unaided   private   Secondary\/Higher <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary School,     if it fulfills the conditions <\/p>\n<p>     specified in Act of 2009 and Rule 3.2 of the Code <\/p>\n<p>     for grant of recognition, as provided in Rule 4.1 <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   Secondary   Schools   Code;   and   recognition <\/p>\n<p>     shall   be   granted   to   unaided   private   primary <\/p>\n<p>     school, if it fulfills the conditions specified in <\/p>\n<p>     Act of 2009 and Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949, as <\/p>\n<p>     provided   in   Section   39   of   the   Act   of   1947   read <\/p>\n<p>     with Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:50 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    291<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (i) It will be open to the Government to consider <\/p>\n<p>     to   amend   the   opening   part   of   Rule   107(1)   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Rules   of   1949   so   as   to   make   it   consistent   with <\/p>\n<p>     Section 18 of the Act of 2009 as also to provide <\/p>\n<p>     for   the   regime   of   issuance   of   provisional <\/p>\n<p>     recognition   to   even   primary   Schools   in   the   first <\/p>\n<p>     place as per the mechanism provided in Rule 4.1 of <\/p>\n<p>     the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (j)  The   pre-existence   of   a   perspective   plan   or <\/p>\n<p>     inclusion of the location in the perspective plan <\/p>\n<p>     or   School   Development   Plan,   as   the   case   may   be, <\/p>\n<p>     for   considering     the   proposal   for   recognition   of <\/p>\n<p>     the   &#8220;private   unaided   schools&#8221;   &#8211;   on   permanent   no <\/p>\n<p>     grant in aid basis or not receiving any other aid <\/p>\n<p>     from   the   Government   whatsoever,   cannot   be   a <\/p>\n<p>     condition precedent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (k)   The   perspective   plan   or   School   Development <\/p>\n<p>     Plan   will   be   relevant   and   ought   to   be   insisted <\/p>\n<p>     upon   only   in   relation   to   proposals   for <\/p>\n<p>     establishment of schools on &#8220;grant in aid basis or <\/p>\n<p>     receiving any other aid&#8221; from the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:51 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   292<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     (l)   The impugned decision of the State reflected <\/p>\n<p>     in the Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009 <\/p>\n<p>     to   cancel   all   the   proposals   for   permission   to <\/p>\n<p>     start   &#8220;Marathi   medium&#8221;   schools   by   issuing   one <\/p>\n<p>     executive   fiat   or   blanket   order   on   the   premise <\/p>\n<p>     that   such   proposals   can   be   considered   only   after <\/p>\n<p>     the   enforcement   of   the   perspective   plan,   is <\/p>\n<p>     illegal   and   unconstitutional   being   discriminatory <\/p>\n<p>     and   arbitrary   and   also   suffers   from   the   vice   of <\/p>\n<p>     non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (m)  We   further   hold   that   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     Secondary   Schools   Code   relating   to   permission <\/p>\n<p>     under Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of the Code and Rule 106 <\/p>\n<p>     of the Rules of 1949 to start a school would apply <\/p>\n<p>     only to the proposals for establishing a school on <\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;grant   in   aid   basis   or   receiving   any   other   aid&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     from the Government. However, even after grant of <\/p>\n<p>     permission, such School shall not function or run <\/p>\n<p>     until the grant of recognition, as per Section 18 <\/p>\n<p>     of   the   Act   of   2009.   Only   on   this   interpretation <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:51 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   293<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     the   constitutional   validity   of   the   abovesaid <\/p>\n<p>     provisions and the opening part of Rule 107(1) of <\/p>\n<p>     the Rules of 1949 can be saved.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (n) We   also hold that the State shall forthwith <\/p>\n<p>     consider   the   proposals   of   all   the   private <\/p>\n<p>     institutions   &#8220;for   grant   of   recognition&#8221;   for <\/p>\n<p>     Marathi  medium  School  &#8211; on  permanent   no grant  in <\/p>\n<p>     aid basis and not receiving any other aid from the <\/p>\n<p>     Government   whatsoever,   in   the   given   locality   on <\/p>\n<p>     its own merits and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (o)  That be done expeditiously and the decision so <\/p>\n<p>     taken be communicated to the concerned Management, <\/p>\n<p>     in any case, not later than 31st May 2010, so that, <\/p>\n<p>     if   recognition   were   to   be   granted,   the   concerned <\/p>\n<p>     School   can   commence   at   the   beginning   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     academic year 2010-2011, from June 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (p)    We have also made some broad suggestions in <\/p>\n<p>     Paragraph  62,  as to the  factors  to  be considered <\/p>\n<p>     and remedial measures taken before finalizing the <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:51 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    294<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     perspective plan or   School Development   plan. We <\/p>\n<p>     hope and trust that the Government would consider <\/p>\n<p>     the same in right earnest.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (q)    We   therefore   allow all these Petitions on <\/p>\n<p>     the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>     83.        Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in all <\/p>\n<p>     these  Petitions  on  the above  terms  with  no order <\/p>\n<p>     as   to   costs.   We   however,   make   it   clear   that   the <\/p>\n<p>     State   will   have   to   examine   every   individual <\/p>\n<p>     proposal of the concerned private management &#8220;for <\/p>\n<p>     recognition&#8221;     of   Marathi   medium   school   on <\/p>\n<p>     permanent no grant basis and without receiving any <\/p>\n<p>     other  aid  from  the Government  on  its own  merits, <\/p>\n<p>     in  accordance  with  law; and  this  Judgment  is  not <\/p>\n<p>     an expression of opinion either way in relation to <\/p>\n<p>     the   questions   to   be   examined   in   that   behalf <\/p>\n<p>     including   that   the   proposed   terms   and   conditions <\/p>\n<p>     to   be   imposed   for   grant   of   recognition   by   the <\/p>\n<p>     appropriate   Authority   are   reasonable   and   in   the <\/p>\n<p>     interests of the general public or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:51 :::<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  295<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     84.          Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     [S.S. SHINDE, J.]          [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]<\/p>\n<p>     asb\/FEB10\/wp345.10<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:49:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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. &amp; Dist-Parbhani, (Through its President, Pralhad Baburao More, Age-33 years, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"219 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":34932,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"219 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":34932,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010","name":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-13T16:56:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-seva-bhavi-sanstha-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83194\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}