news details |
|
|
| HC directive in PIL on fee fixation committee | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 28: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Alok Aradhe today observed that insofar as the prayer seeking direction to committee for fixation of fee to decide the issue related to charging of fee by schools for the months of September and October 2014 is concerned, there cannot be any impediment to decide the matter provided individual school managements have filed applications with proof that the schools functioned during the two months and were not closed due to floods.
The court directive came in a petition, questioning government order No 520-Edu of May 7, 2013 and government order No 344 Edu of July 21, 2015 constituting a committee for fixation of fee structure of private unaided educational institutions and for direction to respondent No 2 to decide the issue related to charging of fee for September and October 2014 after hearing the schools and representatives and to find out as to which of the schools suffered floods, the time duration and the percentage of the fee to be deducted for two months and allow other schools which do not suffer floods to charge fee for these two months in the same manner as it was being charged previously and for direction to determine the fee hike, within one month as also the date from which the same would become applicable and direct the respondents to allow the participation of representative of the petitioner association in the fee fixation committee.
Observed that insofar as the prayer seeking direction to Committee for Fixation of Fee to decide the issue relating to charging of fee by the schools for the months of September/October, 2014 is concerned, there cannot be any impediment to decide the same by the 2nd respondent, provided individual school managements have filed applications with proof that said school/schools functioned during September/ October, 2014 and were not closed due to floods.
Based on the material filed or to be filed by the respective school managements, the 2nd respondent was bound to consider the said aspect and give a finding with regard to the functioning or non-functioning of such schools during September and October 2014 and if it was established that the schools functioned, they should be permitted to collect fee from the students for the two months.
The bench observed that insofar as direction to the committee for fixation of fee to determine the issue of fee hike was concerned, the applications filed by schools with documents in support of their proposed hike were bound to be considered by the 2nd respondent in a pragmatic manner keeping in mind the parameters mentioned by the Supreme Court, namely, infrastructure and facilities available, investment made, salaries paid to teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and betterment of institution. "The committee cannot shirk its responsibility on this aspect and if there is any delay in deciding any application seeking enhancement of fee, it is well open to the said institute to approach this court for seeking appropriate direction which would be considered with all seriousness," the bench said.
The court, however, rejected the petitioner's plea to allow the participation of a member of the association in the fee fixation committee, saying 'it cannot be said that mere presence of the representative of petitioner-association will facilitate determination of correct fee structure as the individual school managements can put forward their claims and justify fee enhancement and it is for the fee determining committee, which is headed by a former judge of this court assisted by experts in education field, to decide the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
