Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1567 (ALL)

LITTLE GENIE v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-07-18

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners claim that they are imparting education to students below six years by running a pre-school in the name of Little Genie. They are aggrieved by notices issued to them on different dates by respondent No. 2 stating that the petitioner institution does not have recognition under Section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Accordingly, they have been asked to close down their institution forthwith, failing which action under sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Act would be taken. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that recognition under Section 18 is required to be obtained by schools as defined under Section 2(n), according to which : (n) “school” means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes— (i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority; (ii) an aided school 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 school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority: The ‘elementary education’ has been defined under Section 2(f) as follows : “(f) “elementary education” means the education from first class to eights class;” The word ‘child’ has also been defined under Section 2(c) as follows : “(c) “child” means a male or female child of the age of six to fourteen years; 4. It is urged that since the petitioners are not imparting elementary education nor are running school as defined under Section 2(n) but are rather imparting pre-school education, they are not covered by Section 18 and therefore, they are not required to seek recognition under the Act. Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has invited attention of the Court to Section 11, which reads as follows : “11. Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has invited attention of the Court to Section 11, which reads as follows : “11. Appropriate Government to provide for pre-school education.— With a view to prepare children above the age of three years for elementary education and to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years, the appropriate Government may make necessary arrangement for providing free pre-school education for such children.” 5. He submitted that the Government has framed draft National Early Students Care and Education Policy and thereunder the State authorities have been authorised to run various creche programmes and institutions for imparting pre-school education. He submitted that it is not clear whether the petitioners institutions would be covered under the National Policy or not and whether they are legally entitled to impart pre-school education. 6. It is not disputed before this Court that after receipt of similar notice issued in the past, the petitioners responded to the same by filing objections wherein specific plea was raised to the effect that they are not imparting elementary education and hence not covered by the definition of ‘schools’ as given under the Act; therefore, they do not require recognition under Section 18. 7. Before issuing the impugned notice dated 3.7.2018, admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing respondent No. 2 to accord consideration to the case of the petitioners. In this respect, the petitioners are granted two weeks’ time to file objections. 8. Sri P.D. Tripathi very fairly states that respondent No. 2 will decide the objections within such time as may be directed by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off by providing that the second respondent shall decide the objections within three weeks from the date of receipt of objections, alongwith certified copy of this order. The impugned notice shall abide by the decision which would be taken by respondent No. 2. Until objections are decided as directed above, the impugned notice dated 3.7.2018 shall remain in abeyance. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.