The Constitutional Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
05 Jun 2021 04:36 pm
3rd May 2021 Supreme Court
Justices: AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari
Sections 4, 7 & 10 of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016.
While reading section 4 of the ACT, the Hon’ble Court has observed that this provision can be read down to mean that the draw of lots would be in respect of willing parents whose wards have been admitted against the seats other than the seats reserved for free education under the RTE Act. Further, for ensuring that the willing 31 parent must be well-informed and capable of (meaningful) interacting in the discourse on the proposal of fee structure presented by the school Management he/she must have been some minimum educational qualification and also familiar with the development of school, management of finances and dynamics of quality education. The desirability of such eligibility of the willing parent ought to be specified.
Section 7 & 8 of the Act: From the bare perusal of section 7(1), it is noticed that first five members are official members. It is a broad based independent committee which includes two representatives of private schools in the divisional area “nominated by the Divisional Commissioner” and similarly two representatives of parents “nominated by the Divisional Commissioner”. The representation is given to the concerned stakeholders in the matter of determination of fee structure proposed by the concerned school Management entails in profiteering or otherwise. In reference to section 7(2)(a), we must observe that the term of office of representatives of the private schools and, in particular parents has been earmarked as two years from the date of their nomination. This would mean, necessarily, that the concerned parent would be eligible until his/her ward continues in the school during the tenure and is not a member of the SLFC of any school within the divisional area. Any member not fulfilling this criterion would be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith and, in his place, a new member can be nominated by the competent authority from amongst the parents of the wards pursuing studies in the school in 40 the concerned divisional area. Moreover, while nominating representative of parents, the Divisional Commissioner must keep in that the person so nominated must possess basic qualification of accounting, development of a school and dynamics of quality education; and whose ward has not secured admission against 25% quota of free education under the RTE Act. Thus understood, even section 7 of the Act of 2016 does not violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution in respect of establishment of educational institution.
Other Judgment
Section 420 IPC- Complaint Cannot Be Quashed On The Sole Ground Of Undue Delay
.jpg)
Bona fide requirement of property.
Matriculation Certificate Has No Precedence Over DoB Certificate
'Cobrapost' Expose - Lesser Punishment Can Be Applied Retrospectively
