Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 200 (MP)

Nirmal Jyoti Society v. State of M. P.

2015-02-16

SANJAY YADAV

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioner, a private unaided minority institution calls in question communication dated 2.8.2011 by Block Education Officer, Bina which is in the following terms:- **dk;kZy; fodkl[kaM f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] chuk Ø-@fujh{k.k@2011@443 chuk] fnukad 2-8-2011 izfr] izkpk;Z] m-ek-fo- fueZy T;ksfr chuk] chuk ftyk lkxjA fo"k; % fujh{k.k fnukad 30-7-2011 ds laca/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;karxZr ekuuh; fo/kk;d chuk egksn;k ds }kjk esjh mifLFkfr esa fnukad 30-7-2011 dks vkidh 'kkyk dk vkSpd fujh{k.k fd;k x;k fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ;g ik;k fd v/;ujr Nk=] Nk=kvks ds fy;s leqfpr O;oLFkk miyC/k ugha gSA ihus ds ikuh dh O;oLFkk LokLFk dks ns[kdj lgh ugha ikbZ xbZ] cPpksa dks izkFkZuk ds le; ckgj /kwi esa yacs le; rd [kMk fd;k tkrk gS ftlls cPpksa dks LokLFk laca/kh dfBukbZ;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+rk gSA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku vk; O;; dk fjdkMZ fn[kkus esa vleFkZrk trkbZA vkids bl dk;Z ls ;g Li"V gksRkk gS fd vki f'k{kk foHkkx dks Hkzfer dj jgh gS tks f'k{kk ds vf/kdkj fu;e ds mya?ku ds nk;js esa vkrk gSA vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd cPpksa dks ihus ds ikuh gsrq ,DokxkMZ ,oa okVj dwyj dh O;oLFkk dh tk,] izkFkZuk esa /kwi ls cpko ds fy;s lsM dh O;oLFkk dh tk,A tka¡p gsrq dk;kZy;hu fjdkMZ ds'kcqd] ystjiath] vk;] O;; 2010&2011 dk;kZy; esa ,dkmUVsaV ds le{k rhu fnol esa izLrqr djsa rkfd tka¡p izfrosnu rRdky ofj"B dk;kZy; dks Hkstk tk ldsA fodkl[kaM f'k{kk vf/kdkjh chuk** 2. Indulgence is sought on the ground that being a private unaided minority institution it is beyond the powers of Block Education Officer to have issued the said communication in purported exercise of power under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Reliance is placed on a decision by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India : (2012)6 SCC 1 . It is contended that said action on the part of Block Education Officer is infringement of right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counsel for the respondents, however, has raised a cavil contradicting the contention put forth by learned counsel for petitioners that it is beyond the jurisdiction of Block Education Officer to even see the quality of drinking water supplied to the children. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) it has been held : “64. 3. Counsel for the respondents, however, has raised a cavil contradicting the contention put forth by learned counsel for petitioners that it is beyond the jurisdiction of Block Education Officer to even see the quality of drinking water supplied to the children. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) it has been held : “64. Accordingly, we hold that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid and shall apply to the following : (i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority; (ii) an aided school including aided minority school(s) receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; (iii) a school belonging to specified category; and (iv) an unaided non-minority school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority. 65. However, the said 2009 Act and in particular sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) infringes the fundamental freedom guaranteed to unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) and, consequently, applying the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India principle of severability, the said 2009 Act shall not apply to such schools. 4. Thus, apparent it is that a minority institution not receiving grant in aid has been excluded from the applicability of 2009 Act, therefore, the action, if any, taken under the 2009 Act by the Block Education Officer against the petitioner/school being contrary to the mandate of Supreme Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) is not tenable. However, it is made clear that if otherwise the Block Education Officer is empowered by the State Government in exercise of its general powers to inspect the schools in respect of the facilities available as to welfare and safety of the children and such power is not drawn from the Act of 2009, he would be at liberty to act thereon in the interest and welfare of the school going children. 5. Petition stands disposed of finally in above terms. Avinash Zargar for petitioners; Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate for respondent/State.