Welfare Committee of Parents of Sainik School Nagrota & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

This petition is by the parents of the children who are students of the Sainik School Nagorta. They have challenged the order dated 18061999

raising tuition fee from Rs. 14000/ to Rs. 20.000/ per annum with effect from academic session 19992000. The petitioners have challenged

upward revision of tuition fee interalia on the grounds that the increase does not take into account the economic condition of the parents and the

object for which the Sainik School was established. It has also ignored the fact that the State Government has refused to increase the rate of the

scholarship to the middle income group. The increase, it is further alleged is also not based on the actual expenditure being incurred by the School

The stand of the respondents is that the fee has been raised on the basis of recommendation of Expert Committee comprising of Financial

Advisor, Joint Secretary Training and Chief Administrative Officer. Ministry of Defence and Joint Education Advisor. Ministry of Defence and

Joint Educational Advisor. Department of Education and Education Secretaries of 8 States. It was on the basis of this recommendation that the

tuition fee has been raised from Rs. 14.000/ to Rs. 20.000/ with effect from academic year 19992000. Further stand of the respondents is that the

total income from the fee and scholarship in respect of the school prior to being only Rs. 64 lakhs as against the actual expenditure of Rupees one

crore. The revision is justified to cover the deficit. The contention of Mr. Thakur is that the increase is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object

for which the School was set up. He also argued unless the income and expenditure statement is furnished by the respondents the increase cannot

be permitted. His further argument is that State Government has not disclosed its stand regarding enhancement of scholarships and therefore, the

petitioners are not liable to pay the increased fee.

Mrs. Neeru Goswami has produced a copy of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in case No. 10859/88 dated

31012000 in a writ petition titled Member representative of Parents of the Students of Sainik School Bhubaneshwar Vs. State of Orissa & Ors in

which the order impugned in this petition was challenged. .The Bench dismissed the petition observing as under:

The next question that arises for determination is whether this court can interfere in the proposed revision of fee structure which is a matter of

policy and not available to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner draws our

attention to a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1999 Delhi 124, wherein it was

held that private schools can generate higher revenue and that it can not be said that the private recognised schools can not charge higher fee.

However, what cannot be done that the private recognised schools in the garb of power to generate higher revenue to pay higher salaries to the

employees, cannot levy unreasonable exhorbitant amounts towards fees and charges. In this decision it was also held that the right to pay

unreasonable exhorbitant amount and what is such an amount would depend upon facts of each case. We have been taken through the counter or

affidavit vividly by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. Our attention is drawn to a decision in the case of Unni

Krishnan, J.P. Vs. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645, wherein it was held that admissions and charging of capitation fees in private unaided/aided

recognised/affiliated educational institutions conducting professional course such a medical, engineering course are subject to conditions and

regulations of the State. Capitation fee was defined as charging or collecting amount beyond that is permitted by law. It is not out of place to

mention here that this case was referred to by the apex court while rendering the judgment in T.M. A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnatka,

(1995) 5 SCC 220, wherein the court was pleased to modify the scheme so framed in Unni Krishnan's case (supra). Now in the present case, we

have to see whether there is an unreasonable hike in the fee structure. As it appears from the counter affidavit, due to increase in the cost of

maintenance of students, fee structure has been revised in pursuance of Annexure4 which is not a phenomenon confined to the State of Orissa.

There is an enhancement of fees in all the Sainik Schools spread over the country. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has

been discriminated absolutely does not arise....

The Bench also examined the revised budget estimate while holding that the govt. was not able to meet the deficit in the school. The court further

held that fee has been raised in all the 18 Sainik Schools throughout India.

The argument of Mr. Thakur is that judgment is based on the budget estimates which the management of the Sainik Schools in Orissa has

produced. Since no such estimates have been produced in this case, reliance argued the learned counsel cannot be placed on the judgment.

However, as the question of enhancement of tuition fee in all the Sainik Schools throughout the country has been examined by the High Court of

Orissa in quite some details, it is not necessary to examine budget estimate for every school. The Committee set up by the Board has examined the

financial position of all the schools, before recommending enhancement of tuition fee and mess fee. This fact is stated in para IV and V of the brief

history given in the return filed by the respondents. These are reproduced below:""(IV) That Board of Governors Sainik Schools Society held its

meeting on 28th March 1997 and unanimously agreed to revise the tuition fee from Rs. 11.000/ to Rs. 14,000/ P.A. with effect from academic

season, 199798 and also directed that a Committee under the Chairmanship of Financial Advisor (Defence Services) of the Ministry of Defence

be constituted to study the scheme of award of scholarships and the funding of Sainik Schools. Accordingly, a Committee headed by F.A. (DS)

and comprising of Joint Secretary (Trg), Chief Administrative Officer. Ministry of Defence, Joint Educational Advisor. Department of Education

and Education Secretaries of 8 State Governments deliberated on the matter. (V) That the recommendations of the above committee were

examined and with the approval of Raksha Mantri, Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society decided to implement the revised fee

with effect from academic session, i.e. 19992000"".

Similarly the expenditure on messing has also been enhanced from Rs. 17.50 to Rs. 20/ per day which is quite reasonable. Besides there is a

specific averment about the income and the expenditure which shows the shortiall of Rs. 30 lacs. The fee increase therefore, cannot be said to be

unjustified. This, however, is apart from the fact that the decision of High Court of Orissa (supra) is quite exhaustive and has dealt with all the

issues raised in this petition. I have thus no hesitation in holding that I am in agreement with the decision and this petition is without any merit. It is

dismissed accordingly.