Associated Managements of Government Recognised English Medium Schools vs State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri G.R. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Pramodhini Kishan, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. Mythri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Clifton D. Rozario for impleading applicants.

Sri G.R. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner at the outset would submit that for the present he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner dated 5-11-2015 - Annexure-C which relates to issue regarding reimbursement by the State, of expenditure incurred by the members - schools of petitioner-Association in respect of 25% students admitted under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 as contemplated tinder Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012.

A perusal of petition averments would indicate that petitioner is a body of Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and is said to have 1500 members - schools of imparting education across the State from Lower Kinder Garten to Standard X. On the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 coming into effect from 1-4-2010, constitutional validity of same came to be challenged before the Apex Court in W.P. No. 94 of 2010 and connected matters and Apex Court by judgment dated 12-4-2012 upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and excluded the unaided minority schools from the purview of the Act. Subsequently, by order dated 6-5-2014 passed in W.P. (Cvl.) No. 416 of 2012 and other connected matters Apex Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, dismissed the writ petitions by upholding the validity of the Act and it was held that Right to Education Act would not applicable to aided minority schools.

Since sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Right to Education Act enables the institutions who come within the ambit of Right to Education Act to seek for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for providing free and compulsory elementary education to 25% of the students admitted under Section 12 to be paid by the State or actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less. The Karnataka Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 (for short ''Rules'') enables the State Government to arrive at the said amount to be reimbursed to the institutions. Rule 8 reads as under:

"8. Reimbursement of per child expenditure by the Government for the purpose of Section 12(2).

(1) The total annual recurring expenditure incurred by the State on elementary education in respect of all schools established or owned by it or by the local authority, divided by the total number of children enrolled in all such schools, shall be the per child expenditure incurred by the Government. For this purpose the expenditure on grant-in-aid schools and students enrolled in such schools shall no be included. The Government shall notify per child expenditure every year before commencement of academic year, which shall be reimbursed in respect of admission of eligible children to private unaided schools. The children admitted under the quota of disadvantaged group and weaker section shall not be levied any other fee, charges or expenses by such school.

(2) Every school which receives reimbursement per child expenditure shall maintain a separate bank account and is subject to audit by the Government. In respect of a child admitted to a private unaided school over and above the quota for the disadvantaged group and weaker section, there shall not be any claim on reimbursement of such expenditure incurred on child''s education in any such school. In respect of the child admitted in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 and a child admitted in pursuance clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12, the responsibility of providing the free entitlements shall be of the school referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of Section 2 and sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2, respectively.

(3) xxxx

(4) xxxx

(5) xxxx

Perusal of Rule 8(1) would indicate that Government is required to notify per child expenditure every year before commencement of academic year, which should be reimbursed in respect of eligible children admitted to private unaided schools. The grievance of petitioner is that circular dated 19-9-2015 would indicate the reimbursement of the fees to 25% of the students admitted under the Right to Education Act restricts the amount to Rs. 5,924/- to primary and Rs. 11,848/- for I Standard and even said amount which has been claimed by the members of petitioner-schools has not been reimbursed or not being paid as per Annexure-B. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that petitioner-members - schools are budget schools and they are dependant on the fees being collected by 75% of students admitted ana they are finding it difficult to maintain the institutions and as such, a representation was submitted on 5-11-2015 - Annexure-C to consider either the school annual fees or fees collected for per child or the annual expenditure incurred by the Government for being reimbursed to the petitioner-member schools.

On account of non-consideration of said representation petitioner is before this Court. Though petitioner has also raised a ground that Government order dated 8-2-2016 - Annexure-G is not in conformity with the Section 12 of Right to Education Act, insofar as, it relates to fixation of reimbursement as indicated in the notification dated 8-5-2012 - Annexure-F, Sri G.R. Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that it would suffice if a direction is issued to first respondent to consider the representation dated 5-11-2015 - Annexure-C in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Right to Education Act read with Rule 8(1) and 8(2).

In the light of the afore stated facts and in the light of submission made by Sri G.R. Mohan this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would meet if first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5-11-2015 - Annexure-C in accordance with Section 12(2) read with Rule 8(1) and 8(2). Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed in part.

(ii) First respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation submitted by petitioner dated 5-11-2015 - Annexure-C keeping in mind Section 12(2) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules, which enables the appropriate Government to notify per child expenditure every year before the commencement of academic year.

(iii) First respondent shall extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorised representative to appear and make their submission and shall dispose of the said representation (Annexure-C) expeditiously at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iv) No opinion is expressed with regard to merits of the case and contentions raised in the writ petition and they are kept open.