State of Kerala v. Tribal Mission (SC) BS397485
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.S.P. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6267 of 2012. D/d. 4.9.2012.

State of Kerala and Others - Appellants

Versus

Tribal Mission - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- George Poonthottam, M.P. Vinod, Dileep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain and Neelam Saini, Advocates.

Education - Affiliation - Recognition of unaided schools - Recognition of unaided school having already started - Validity of refusal to grant recognition - Compliance of procedure prescribed in Rules - Held that, a school opened in unaided sector cannot claim recognition as a matter of right - Policy requires not to recognise any schools overlooking the procedure prescribed in - Rules Single Judge confirmed order of refusal by the appellant State - Division Bench directed State to grant recognition to the school - Held that the respondent cannot press for recognition of its school without complying with procedure laid down in the Rules - If respondent claim recognition without complying with the conditions laid down under the Rules, it would provide scope for discrimination and arbitrariness - Direction issued by the Division Bench for recognising the school of respondent held to be untenable and set aside - Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rules 2 and 2-A - Compliance with - G.O. (P) No. 107/07/G.Edn. dated 13-6-2007 and G.O. (Rt) No. 5321/07/G.Edn. dated 22-11-2007 - Constitution of India, Article 21A, 19 (1)(g), 226 and 141.

[Paras 8 to 10]

Cases Referred :-

State of Kerala & Others v. K. Prasad, (2007) 7 SCC 140.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. - Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the State is duty bound to grant recognition to an unaided educational institution on the touchstone of Article 21A of the Constitution of India overlooking the procedure laid down under Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'KER').

3. The Respondent established a school by name Betham English Medium School in the year 2001 at Attappady in the Palakkad District, State of Kerala in the unaided sector. An application for recognition was submitted by the respondent school in the year 2003 before the Government. The Deputy Direction of Education, however, forwarded a report/letter No. B1/8863/07 dated 19.10.2007 to the State Government pointing out existence of a three recognised schools within a distance of 5 km from the respondent school following Tamil and Malayalam mediums having Standard 1 to 7, of which one is situated within a distance of 2.5 km. Further, it was pointed out that the respondent school though was having sufficient infrastructure, granting recognition would adversely affect the other aided schools functioning in that area and the possibility of division fall in these schools could not be ruled out.

4. The Government rejected the application for recognition on the ground that it would violate the Government's Policy referred to in GO (P) No.107/07/G Edn dated 13.06.2007. Further, it was also pointed out that the procedure for granting recognition to new schools is laid down in Chapter V of KER and as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER, an application for opening a school should be in response to the notification under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2A of Chapter V. Consequently, the application was rejected by the Government vide GO (Rt) No. 5321/07/G.Edn. dated 22.11.2007.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent along with various others approached the learned single Judge of the High Court who upheld the order. Respondent took up the matter before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide its judgment dated 18.8.2010 allowed the appeal stating that the respondent has satisfied the various conditions laid down in the Government's Policy dated 13.6.2007 and therefore, directed the Government to grant recognition to the respondent school as an unaided self-finance English medium school to run classes from standard 1 to 10 from the academic year 2010-11 onwards. The State is aggrieved by that judgment and hence this appeal.

6. We have heard Ms. Bina Madhavan for the appellant and Shri M.P. Vinod for the respondent. Chapter V of KER deals with the opening and recognition of schools. For easy reference, we may extract Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V as under:

7. The scope of the above mentioned rules came up for consideration in the case of State of Kerala & Others v. K. Prasad & Another (2007) 7 SCC 140, wherein this Court held as follows:

8. The Government's Policy issued vide GO(P) No.107/07/G Edn. dated 13 June, 2007 with regard to up-gradation of existing schools and recognition of unaided schools applies to respondent school as well. The operative portion of the same which applies to unaided schools and grant of NOC for CBSE/ICSE Schools reads as follows:

9. Para 3 above will not give any Carte Blanche to start a school in the unaided sector and then seek recognition as a matter of right because para 1 above indicates that as a policy unaided schools need not be given recognition in future. In the instant case, it is after starting the school in the unaided sector, the respondent school is pressing for recognition which, in our view, is not a correct procedure. Assuming that the respondent school has satisfied all the requirements stipulated in Para 3, still it has to undergo the procedure laid down under Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V, otherwise, as held by this Court in K. Prasad case (supra), it is bound to provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness, favouritism and also would affect the functioning of other recognised schools in the locality.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has expressed the view that once the respondent satisfies Para 3 of the Policy, the State Government has to grant recognition which in our view would go contrary to the view expressed by this Prasad Case (supra) and violates Rule 2, 2A of Chapter V of KER. The question, as to whether, the grant of recognition would affect the existing schools is also a relevant consideration. The State spends large amounts by way of aid, grant etc. for running schools in the aided sector as well as the State owned schools. Indiscriminate grant of recognition to schools in the unaided sector may have an adverse affect on the State owned schools as well as the existing schools in the aided sector, by way of division fall, retrenchment of teachers etc. Therefore, the procedure laid down in Rules 2, 2A of Chapter V of KER cannot be overlooked.

11. The State Government, in the instant case, has already granted recognition to the respondent school for conducting the classes from 1 to 10 in the academic year 2010-11 onwards, of course, subject to the result of this SLP. Considering the fact that the local body has also recommended recognition and large number of students are now studying in the school, and the same is situated in a Tribal area, we find no reason to interfere with the recognition already granted to the respondent school as a special case, but we make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. Appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.

.