V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise a common question as to the power of the State Government to fix or regulate the collection of tuition and other fees from the pupil studying in respective schools. The Constitution of India has given unto ourselves Article 45 declaring that the State shall endeavour that education up to the age of 14 years shall be free. Apparently, in order to make this Constitutional guarantee more meaningful, the Government of Karnataka after enacting the Education Act, 1984, had constituted a Committee to recommended further steps to achieve the object. It is seen from W. P. No. 18061/2000 and connected cases the extracts from the report of that Committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Chinnappa Reddy has been copiously referred to. In order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, a reference to the part of the report herein will be useful. The following part of the report has been extracted in the W. P. :"in regard to compulsory primary education, there is already in force a Karnataka Compulsory Primary Education Act. But, clearly the Act is not properly implemented. The will to implement the Act appears to be lacking. To my shock, I discovered that in the State of Karnataka there are 13,024 single teacher schools as against the total of 20,830 Primary, Secondary and High Schools in the entire State. The State of Karnataka leads all other States and has the highest percentage of such schools. The number of pupils attending these 13,024 single teacher primary schools is 8,34,885. The naked fact therefore is that 8,34,885 pupils now in the primary schools of Karnataka State are receiving next to no education since it is humanly impossible for a single teacher to manage four different classes, teaching different subjects simultaneously. What makes it even worse is that a large number of these schools are also single roomed. Out of the total of 23,023 primary schools in the State of Karnataka, 16,383 are single roomed while 3,796 are two-roomed. One can imagine the raucous cacophony on one side and the bewildered helplessness of the teacher on the other. Out of the 23,023 primary schools, only 5,380 have adequate play grounds. Out of 14,969 upper primary schools in Karnataka State only 4,956 have adequate play grounds. Out of 3,572 secondary schools, only 1,677 have adequate play grounds. One can imagine the raucous cacophony on one side and the bewildered helplessness of the teacher on the other. Out of the 23,023 primary schools, only 5,380 have adequate play grounds. Out of 14,969 upper primary schools in Karnataka State only 4,956 have adequate play grounds. Out of 3,572 secondary schools, only 1,677 have adequate play grounds. Out of 3,572 secondary schools, 1,199 have no laboratory facilities at all. There are also some primary schools without black boards even. All these figures are official figures taken from the educational statistics published by the National Council for Educational Research and Training. In this sorry state of affairs,how is it possible to expect the children of the socially and educationally backward classes who per force attend Government Schools and no other to perform well or to show any interest at all in education. " (Underlining for easy reference)As the above was the situation prevailing, the State Government felt that it is necessary to improve the standard of educational set up in Karnataka and as a step in aid in this behalf, it framed various Rules under the the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, which was brought in force. The State Government had framed several Rules in exercise of its power conferred in this behalf u/s. 145 including set of Rules relates to the levy of fees. These defects are attempted to be cured to some extent by framing certain statutory Rules in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S. 145 of the Act. Other Rules touched on the subjects such as Curricula Rules providing for amenities to be secured, compulsory primary education, discipline and control, disqualifying, unrecognised and unaffiliated Institutions from imparting education, etc. The Education Act, stood supplemented by the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. However, we cannot state that the statutory control to improve the standard cannot be said to be exhaustive to prevent all malaise that were noticed by the Justice Chinnappa Reddy Commission Report. Besides was also necessary to have control over the levy of fees being collected. In this behalf, the first set of rules thus framed is described as karanataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995, (which is referred to hereinafter for conveninence as 'curricula Rules' in short ). Besides was also necessary to have control over the levy of fees being collected. In this behalf, the first set of rules thus framed is described as karanataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) Rules, 1995, (which is referred to hereinafter for conveninence as 'curricula Rules' in short ). Rule 10 thereof as referred to by the petitioners lays down that educational Institutions are entitled to collect Term Fees, Tuition Fees and Special Development Fees. Though the expression 'special Development Fees' is not defined as such, it is being understood to mean, to cover the expenditure incurred by the Institutions on National Festivals, Religious functions, Tests, Class Exams. , Annual Exams. , Annual day celebrations, Sports day celebrations and any other similar functions. Tuition fees that can be collected is as provided under rule 10 (3) (b) (ii) of the Rules which reads as follows :"in case of recognised private unaided institutions tuition fees may be collected from all the students which shall be commensurate with the expenditure incurred towards salary of staff and the quality of education provided by the institution. " ( 2 ) IN the guise of applying these rules, each Institution was levying fees as it suits them. It may be noticed that rule 10 (3) (b) (ii) merely stated that tuition fees that may be collected from the students studying in the Institutions shall be commensurate with expenditure incurred towards salary of staff and quality of education provided by the Institution. In fact, the implementation of the rule is in effect a Chancellors foot and depending on one's discretion (mostly I am told it verged to arbitrariness) the fees was being levied. It came to a state that, in the guise of "quality of education provided by the Institution," each Institution started levying its own fees which were fairy tale fixation. As for instance they provided a hall somewhere in the premises with a few musical instruments and claimed that they provided a special type of education in the field of music. Likewise, certain Institutions provided one or two computers in the school (which were mainly being used for the office purpose) and claimed that the existence thereof enhanced the quality of education. Likewise, certain Institutions provided one or two computers in the school (which were mainly being used for the office purpose) and claimed that the existence thereof enhanced the quality of education. Again, certain other Institutions claimed higher distinction, in that, they choose the locality of the school having larger areas in the neighbourhood set apart by the Local Authorities as public utility lands and claimed that they can be used by thier students to play. This also according to them enhanced the "quality of education. " Thus the expression "quality of education" had received varied meaning assigned to by imaginative manager, the kinds of meaning given to the expression by various Institutions according to their imagination. The Institutions thus made claims that they were providing better quality of education to students admitted in their Institution. (These instances are culled out on the basis of local verification made by the Commissioners appointed in this behalf in this case, by this Court ). Perhaps, because of these unguided and unbridled interpretation of Rule 10 of Curricula Rules referred to supra, the Government framed fresh set of Rules called Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Certain Fees and Donations) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). These Rules were published in Gazette on 14-3-2000 and it came into force with the subsequent academic year. The Rule has been challenged by the petitioners herein who are managing private educational institutions. They are in particular challenging the validity of Rule 4, alleging that it infringes their right to levy commensurate fees. The said Rule reads as under:"4. Fees in unaided Private Educational Institutions:1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any rules made in this behalf and in lieu of tuition fee charged under Rule 10 (2) (b) (ii) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation, Prescription of Curricula etc. ,) Rules 1995, the maximum tuition fee in respect of private Unaided Educational Institutions shall be fixed taking into consideration the Salary Expenditure on teaching and non-teaching staff plus 30% of the salary expenditure towards contingency and maintenance costs divided by total number of students. Provided that the salary expenditure includes contribution towards Provident Fund by the management, encashment benefit, LTC/htc benefits, medical allowance, conveyance allowance, if any, given to the staff of the Institution. Provided that the salary expenditure includes contribution towards Provident Fund by the management, encashment benefit, LTC/htc benefits, medical allowance, conveyance allowance, if any, given to the staff of the Institution. Provided further that the total number of students for calculation of the quantum of fees shall be the actual number of students on roll at the end of previous academic year and the sanctioned intake in respect of approved additional sections, if any, for the ensuing year, namely the year for which the fees is being notified. And provided further that the above fees shall be collected by the management in addition to the Special Development Fees and Term Fees stipulated in the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995. 2. the salary expenditure shall be as per the audited account of the management subject to the limitation of pay scales prescribed by Government as well as the prescribed staffing pattern and it has to be cross verified with reference to Acquittance Roll, Bank Account of the employee and Attendance Register. "this Rule primarily classifies the manner of fixation of the fees described as the tuition fees. The complaint is that the Rule is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and that it does not employ any scientific means while asssessing the quantum of fees leviable. ( 3 ) ALL the cases were admitted and were posted for hearing. At this stage, a contention was urged on behalf of the State that many of the Institutions imparting education are not providing the statutory infrastructure and facilities contemplated under the Statute to be provided and that most of them are in the nature of commercial adventure. This stand was taken by the Government when the matter was being heard. Thereupon the petitioners filed a rejoinder disputing the statement asserting that the Institutions were complying with all the requirement of Rules and are providing amenities, infrastructure and facilities to be provided to the students studying in the school. Thereupon this Court appointed two Advocates, Mr. D. M. Joshi and Ms. Mamatha Biju, as Commissioners to visit petitioner-schools and submit a detailed report. It is noteworthy to state that these young Advocates did commendable work, visited all the petitioner-schools and submitted an exhaustive report which makes an interesting reading. ( 4 ) THE Curricula Rules prescribes certain minimum requirement to be provided to the pupils studying in the Educational Institutions. Mamatha Biju, as Commissioners to visit petitioner-schools and submit a detailed report. It is noteworthy to state that these young Advocates did commendable work, visited all the petitioner-schools and submitted an exhaustive report which makes an interesting reading. ( 4 ) THE Curricula Rules prescribes certain minimum requirement to be provided to the pupils studying in the Educational Institutions. The Commissioners report shows that in certain schools these were lacking. In particular we may advert to rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Curricula Rules which are as under :"4. General regulations relating to buildings of Educational Institutions-No educational institution or part thereof shall function in a building, unless - (a) it is located in healthy and sanitary surroundings; (b) it is built with safe roof and structure; (c) it is built in such a way as to ensure sufficient air and light both inside the classrooms and in the staircase, corridors and allweys; (d) the height of the building from the floor to the ceiling in each storey is more than eight feet; (e) it is of not more than seven storeys from the ground level; (f) where it is of more than one floor from the ground level, safe and proper staircases are provided; (g) Where it is of more than three storeys from the ground level, proper and safe lift facilities is provided; (h) it is not used in any part of the day, week, month or year, for any purpose other than for the furtherance of education. ( 5 ) GENERAL Regulations relating to minimum accommodation per student, furniture, etc.- (1) Every building of an educational institution shall provide adequate and proper accommodation which shall ensure- (i) a separate classroom for each division/section of a standard; in the case of primary schools a separate classroom for each teacher; (ii) carpet area for each student of not less than six square feet; (iii) separate rooms, one for the chamber of the head of the institution, one for the staff-room and one for general office; (iv) separate accommodation for library, reading room and stores, in institutions imparting secondary and higher education. (2) Every educational institution shall provide sufficient area for playground, enough for all the students in the institution to assemble, and to play and watch at least two outdoor games at one time. (2) Every educational institution shall provide sufficient area for playground, enough for all the students in the institution to assemble, and to play and watch at least two outdoor games at one time. (3) All the classrooms, chambers, staff room, office room, library, reading room and stores shall be equipped with appropriate furniture of good quality material. ( 6 ) PROVISION of drinking water, toilet and other facilities - Every educational institution shall provide - (1) Safe and potable drinking water in quantities sufficient for all the students, located at convenient points within the building. (2) Adequate toilet facility, urinal accommodation, dining hall and canteen within the premises of the institution and maintained good sanitary condition, ensuring sufficient water supply at all points. Provided that toilet facility and urinal accommodation shall be provided separately for boy students and girl students. ( 7 ) TIME for providing facilities to existing institutions - All the educational institutions existing as at the date of commencement of this rule shall provide the facilities specified in Rules 4, 5 and 6 within three years from such a comme commencement. No new educational institution shall begin classes unless it has substantively complied with all the provisions of Rules 4, 5 and 6. ( 8 ) FENCING of dangerous places within the premises are fenced around for the safety of students. "it was discovered from the report of the Commissioners that in the case of petitioners in W. P. No. 15731/2000 and connected cases, the basic requirements were lacking. There were no playground available for the students to play. In certain other cases, when the Commissioners wanted to see the play ground, the management pointed out the neighbouring park or open space kept apart by the local authority for civic amenities to be the place where the pupil can play. Likewise, it can be seen from the report and the details furnished by the Commissioners of the description of the building used as class rooms that it would be doubtful whether the statutory requirement of the need of 6 square feet for each pupil as per Rules would be satisfied. Most of the schools are housed in three storeyed buildings and the construction did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 4 supra. I do apprehend how far such building be safe for housing class rooms. Most of the schools are housed in three storeyed buildings and the construction did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 4 supra. I do apprehend how far such building be safe for housing class rooms. I do not think a further reference of the report need be done at this stage, because, if the report is reproduced here in more detail there is nothing complimentary for the petitioners to substantiate their claim and it will be seen that the Rule is largely observed in violation. 5. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioners is with respect to the fixation of the fees on the basis of the Rule referred to above, contending that it is totally arbitrary and that it should have been left to be done in accordance with Rule 10 of the Curricula Rules referred to above without any statutory yardstick. 6. It is not in dispute that the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Act, 1983 has been upheld. Section 145 (xix) reads as follows : "regulating rates of fees, levy and collection of fees in educational institutions" This Section empowers the State Government to frame the rules to regulate the fees to be collected from the pupils being educated in the Institutions. Does Rule 10 of the Curricula Rules satisfy the requirement of Section 145 (xix)? I am of the view that it does not. The Rule 10 has been as vague as anything and as stated earlier, the rule is a clear example of what is commonly called 'chancellors foot'. Any imaginary figure can be fixed as the Tuition fees. Hence by framing the present Rule 4 of the Rules, the Rule makers have plugged that vagueness in Rule 10 as it occurred earlier. 7. The need of the hour is to aim at establishing an educational institution which would produce people with integrated personalities. " whose minds, hearts and character have been developed in the noble tradition of our invaluable heritage. "it is said that unlike animals who can be well trained, it is only the human beings who can be educated. An educational Institution should build up character in the pupil being taught. " whose minds, hearts and character have been developed in the noble tradition of our invaluable heritage. "it is said that unlike animals who can be well trained, it is only the human beings who can be educated. An educational Institution should build up character in the pupil being taught. Hence, when any Rule is to be framed in exercise of the power under Section 145 (xix) of the Act, then the fixation of fees should render it possible for any willing parent to educate his sibling in an Institution which foster the development of such an Institution. With this in the background, we will examine the challenge to Rule 4 of the Rules referred to supra. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that Rule 10 of the curricula Rule referred to above is vague in itself. It merely stated that schools should fix the fees commensurate with the expenditure incurred towards salary of staff and the quality of education provided by the institution. The expression 'commensurate with expenditure incurred towards salary of the staff' has been amplified in the present Rules to mean the actual expenditure expended. As regards the levy of fees under the head quality of education is concerned, the present Rules takes care, in that, it has provided claiming of an extra 30% for the expenditure towards contingency and maintenance costs. ( 9 ) THE basic principle to be remembered is that an educational institution should not be run on a commercial profit making basis. Institutions would be the modern 'gurukulas' where education is imparted without expecting any return from the students who study in such an institution. But viewed in the present trend, most of the institutions have turned out into ongoing commercial adventures where large sums of money is collected in the form of donations/admission fees etc. The Advocate Commissioners have produced certain receipts issued by the petitioner institutions which indicate collection of as much as Rs. 6000-00 in certain cases from the pupil at the time of admission in the first standard or Kindergarten class. It is also reported that at the commencement of every academic year such an amount is being levied and collected even if the pupil studied in the very same institution in the previous year and he is being admitted to the higher class on being promoted. It is also reported that at the commencement of every academic year such an amount is being levied and collected even if the pupil studied in the very same institution in the previous year and he is being admitted to the higher class on being promoted. This is a strange practice and the amount collected is a staggering figure and woe to the parent who could not afford to pay such sums. It is also seen from the other documents produced that there is no consistency in the matter of levy of fees in each of these schools. As far as the petitioner in W. P. 15731/2000 is concerned, the total pupil strength is 125. There are seven teachers to teach them. While in the case of petitioner in W. P. No. 15719/2000, the total strength is 620. The strength of teaching staff is 25. As far as petitioner in W. P. No. 15730/2000, the student strength is 438. Total teaching staff is 22. In W. P. No. 18061-62/2000 is concerned, who run more than one educational institution, the student-teacher ratio is as follows: @@329. htm@@ the monthly fees as seen from the available documents produced is also not uniform. There is no consistent teacher-pupil ratio with respect to each school as can be seen from the statistics. We notice, in an Institution with strength of 1,935 pupil, there are only 23 teachers to teach, while in yet another Institution with strength of 125 students, there are 22 teachers to teach. The attention a teacher can bestow on a pupil in such a situtation is minimal. ( 10 ) THE glaring defect is that certain institutions are imparting education without proper fixation of staff and adhering to any subject ratio. From the documents made available to the Advocate Commissioners and which they have produced, it is not discernible what total hours or periods when science is taught or social studies is taught etc. in a class. It is not known whether there are qualified teachers to teach the subjects on the staff of the Institution. But, there is a lacuna. There are no statutory provision mandating such requirements to be adhered to. No rules are apparently brought to my notice. As such, the State has not exercised its control in giving effect to the Contitutional mandate to make education up to age of 14, meaningfully free. But, there is a lacuna. There are no statutory provision mandating such requirements to be adhered to. No rules are apparently brought to my notice. As such, the State has not exercised its control in giving effect to the Contitutional mandate to make education up to age of 14, meaningfully free. Providing free education does not mean providing a black board and few chalk pieces in an enclosed premises. There should be meaningful follow-up action to see that there is qualified person to use the chalk and the black board and the scribe himself knows what he is writing. Again free education cannot be treated as totally free, when, the institution is run by an unaided educational institution. Certainly it does not mean that there should be total absence of levy of any fees. But the fees that can be levied has to be reasonable and the Institutions cannot be allowed to run like a commercial activity. ( 11 ) THE challenge of petitioners is that the rule framed by the respondents as per Rule 4 referred to above is without taking into account certain components which they contend are relevant for fixation of fee. The components have been detailed in W. P. No. 18061 and 18062/2000 as follows:"a) People cost (being gross remuneration payable to teacher/staff/management)b) Indirect materials cost, including recurring expenses on supplies, repairs and maintenance. c) Infrastructure costs, being depreciation on capital lutlay and maintenance costs of buildings, furniture, equipment, plant and special facilities. d) Interest imputed on capital employed, whether actually paid on loans contracted or attributed to own capital employed. e) Costs of running and maintenance of support facilities like buses, vans, etc. ," ( 12 ) AT the outset, one has to state that running of a school is not a commercial adventure. It is a service to society and the private agency is to aid the State in this behalf. The instances made mention of above are ingredients which goes to fix a tariff in the matter of fixation of prices for a commodity. A school cannot be equated to a commercial adventure. The State cannot permit schools being run fixing their fees taking into account the costs incurred by them as if in a commercial adventure such a 'material' cost, recurring expenses, infrastructure cost, interest being input on capital employed, cost to be incurred for maintenance of staff etc, etc. A school cannot be equated to a commercial adventure. The State cannot permit schools being run fixing their fees taking into account the costs incurred by them as if in a commercial adventure such a 'material' cost, recurring expenses, infrastructure cost, interest being input on capital employed, cost to be incurred for maintenance of staff etc, etc. , Rule 4 clearly provides for recovering the salary besides 30% to meet the over head expenditure. The costs such as depreciation on capital outlay and maintenance cost of buildings, etc. , cannot be part of the fees being paid by a pupil. Likewise, interest on capital deployed is a notion which is related to business adventures and commercial activities and not known to the educational Institutions. I am of the view that none of the expenditures made mention of by the petitioners which is extracted above can be part of the fee structure payable by a sudent. Rule 4 is a living Rule which could adjust itself taking into account the changes in the overheads as and when they are increased or decreased. If that be so, there is no illegality in Rule 4 framed and its validity has to be upheld. ( 13 ) IT is to be noted that there is unhealthy development in the society in that, certain schools are crowed by the public even if it is not situated in their locality. It is hightime the State reconsiders the whole issue and directs its attention to follow the well known practice in western countries known commonly as the neighbourhood school system. The system of neighbourhood school visualises as under:"the neighbourhood school plan envisages that every school would admit children living in its vicinity without consideration of casts, creed or economic and social status. Besides ensuring social unity, the concept is also likely to help children receive good education as participation in the life of common people itself is a necessary part of this. There are other factors also which hinders development of such a system. Presently knowledge is increasing in an exponential fashion. This explosion of knowledge had not only created an unban-rural divide but also a State-to-State-divide. This divide would have to be bridged by taking steps for equalisation of educational opportunities. The so-called public schools rarely follow the neighbourhood admission policy. There are other factors also which hinders development of such a system. Presently knowledge is increasing in an exponential fashion. This explosion of knowledge had not only created an unban-rural divide but also a State-to-State-divide. This divide would have to be bridged by taking steps for equalisation of educational opportunities. The so-called public schools rarely follow the neighbourhood admission policy. While these schools deprive children living in the neighbourhood, they provide admission to others who reach there from a distance of up to 20 km. Growing competition in life had made children as well as parents conscious of the quality of education. They wanted to be served by any school which they think was best for them. This made it necessary to improve the standards of common schools which catered mainly to the poor. " ( 14 ) IT is not as if the Education Act has not postulated such a situation. Section 145 (viii) clothes statutory power with the State to frame Rules in this behalf. That provision reads as follows:" (VIII) the distance beyond which a child cannot be compelled to attend an approved school. " ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Basavaraj, Mr. Subba Rao and Mr. Lobo, invited my attention to the decision of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1999 Delhi 124 (Delhi Abaihavak Mahasangh v. Union of India) which resulted in Justice Santosh Duggal Committee being constituted for studying the fixation of fees in various institutions. In the said judgment, the following direction were issued by the High Court. "65. In view of the aforesaid discussion our conclusions may be summerised as under :-i) It is the obligation of the administrator and/or Director of Education to prevent commercialisation and exploitation in private unaided schools including schools run by minorities. ii) The tuition fee and other charges are required to be fixed in a validly constituted meeting giving opportunity to the representatives of Parent Teachers Association and Nominee of Director of Education to place their view points. iii) No permission from Director of Education is necessary before or after fixing tuition fee. In case, however, such fixation is found to be irrational and arbitrary there are ample powers under the Act and the Rules to issue directions to school to rectify it before resorting to harsh measures. iii) No permission from Director of Education is necessary before or after fixing tuition fee. In case, however, such fixation is found to be irrational and arbitrary there are ample powers under the Act and the Rules to issue directions to school to rectify it before resorting to harsh measures. The question of commercialisation of education and exploitation of parents by individual schools can be authoritatively determined on thorough examination of accounts and other records of each schooliv) The Act and the Rules prohibit transfer of funds from the school to the society or from one school to another. v) The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society. vi) The inspection of the schools, audit of the accounts and compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules by private recognised unaided schools could have prevented the present state of affairs. vii) The authorities/director of Education has failed in its obligation to get the accounts of private recognised unaided schools audited from time to timeviii) The schools/societies can take voluntary donations not connected with the admission of the ward. ix) On the peculiar facts of these petitions there is no per se illegality in issue of the impugned circular dated 10th September 1997. x) An independent statutory Committee, by amendment of law, if necessary deserves to be constituted to go into factual matters and adjudicate disputes, which may arise in future in the matter of fixation of tuition fee and other charges. xi) The Government should consider extending Act and Rules with or without modifications to all schools from Nursery onward. "i am of the view that most of these directions have been achieved by framing the Rules already framed by the Government. ( 16 ) BUT it is hightime that Government takes a relook at the whole situation prevailing. It is reported by the Commissioners appointed by this Court that several institutions do not extend amenities to the pupil studying in respective schools. There are no infrastructure facilities. The class rooms provided are crowded where large number of students have to put up with. The State Government provides that 6 square feet be provided for each pupil. But it does not stipulate what should be the height of the classrooms. There are no infrastructure facilities. The class rooms provided are crowded where large number of students have to put up with. The State Government provides that 6 square feet be provided for each pupil. But it does not stipulate what should be the height of the classrooms. As such what is the extent of cubic feet area a pupil should get is also not known. In many of the institutions these requirements are not achieved and there is no re-striction as to the number of students be admitted. No ratio regarding of Teacher-pupil is fixed by the rules. ( 17 ) MANY of the institutions do not have play ground for the students to play. Statute should insist that a particular extent of area should be set apart for playground for the pupils. There is no means for the improvement of their physical standard if such is the condition of the schools. ( 18 ) IN short, Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Curricula Rules have not been complied with ( 19 ) AS regards the staff pattern is concerned, it is noticed that in certain schools there are large number of students to be taught by few teachers, whereas vice-versa elsewhere. Such anomalies should be rectified by statutory means. The Rules also should provide that a social studies teacher should not be called upon to teach Science subject and vice-versa. Teachers with subject requirement should alone be appointed and permitted to teach. ( 20 ) THAT apart, the collection of donation at the time of admission initially and later at the stage of admission to each class should be totally banned. The schools should be banned from collecting any donation from the student at the time of admission or later. The Education Department should make periodical inspection of the schools to ascertain whether there be any violation of the Rules and whether the schools are in a congenial atmosphere suitable to enable the pupil to study. ( 21 ) I do not find any invalidity in the impugned Rule 4 framed by the Government. Writ petitions are to be dismissed --- *** --- .