Coordination Committee Of Public Schools v. Directorate Of Education & ORS

$-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 528/2016 % Judgment Pronounced on.• March, 2017 COORDINATION COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Narang with Ms.Jyoti Narang, Advocates.

Versus

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ,& ORS . . . .Respondents Through Mr Santosh KumarJripathi, ASC for Ri/GNCTD Ms Puja Kaira, Advocate for North MCD Mr. Siddharth Joshi with Ms Prerna Sinha, Advocates for EDMC Mr Anil Grover, Standing Counsel with Ms Kanika Singh, Asst Standing Counsel, Ms Nupur Sinhal,& Mr. Rishi Vohra, Advocates for R:5

CORAM

HON'BLE THE CHIEY JUSTICE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

JUDGMENT

1.

The appeal is preferred against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3556/2016. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before us. 2.

The said writ petition was dismissed holding that as under: "However, this Court is of the opinion that the land requirement as well as permission to allow private primary schools to run middle level classes in second By:AMULYA

shift are a policy decisions and the Courts normally do not interfere with such decisions in writ jurisdiction.

As far as the plea with regard to equality is concerned, this Court is of the view that "Equality before the law" means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that 'like' should be treated 'alike'. Consequently, what Article 14 of the Constitution forbids s discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. Unequal treatment does not arise between persons governed by different conditions and different sets of circumstances The rule is thai 'like' should be treated 'alike' should be treated 'alike'

Consequently, as the pi irnary schools and the middle level schools are not alike this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is bereft of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly."

3.

We have heard learned •couhseL appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record 4 It was the contention of the appellant that the circular dated 22 03 2013 issued by the Directorate of Education mandating minimum land requirement for recognition as a middle/elementary level school in Delhi is unreasonable and disproportionate. As per the impugned circular, the minimum requirement of land for a primary level school is 200 sq. yards whereas, the minimum area of land required for a middle/elementary level school has been increased to almost four times the size i.e. 700 sq. meters without any justification or reasonable study. The result of enforcing the impugned circular would imply that various private unaided schools running in unauthorised colonies in Delhi would LPA No. 654/2016

Cc be forced to shut down, the consequences of which would have to be borne by the thousands of children studying in these schools. 5.

To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the minimum land area to be possessed by middle/elementary level schools is based on the needs and requirements of the children studying in these schools at middle/elementary level because better equipment and facilities are required for overall development of these children. 6.

At the outset, it is relevant to peruse the impugned circular dated 22.03.2013.It reads asunder- "1 Section 18 and Section 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 provide that no school be es ' ta'blished -or function withoutThbtarning a certificate of recognition and conforming to norms and standaids specified in the scheme to the Act within three years f the commencement of the Act.

2. Considering the fact there are number of unrecognized schools still functioning without obtaining the certificate of recognition with a 'v iew t save the interest of the thousand of children studving in these schools procedure, for recognition in respect of unrecognized schools running upto Primary /"Elementary level and existing and functioning on the date of commencement of the RTE Act, i.e. 01.04.2010 has bee'n'lmpl/Ied. 3.Further, all such unrecognized schools, situated in unauthorized/undeveloped/regularized colonies, running classes up to the elementary level and possessing the following land area can apply for recognition.-- SL Schools level Minimum Minimum Facility to No.

land area to be provided be possessed by the School U to primary level 200 Sq. Yards (5 class rooms + other (i.e. class V) prescribedfacilities LPA No. 654/2016

2r 02 Upto middle/ 700 Sq. Mrs.

(8 class rooms+ other elementary level prescribed facilities) (i.e. class VIII)

4. The schools situated in planned/developed colonies shall have to conform to land area norms as presently in force. 5.it has been further provided that the unrecognized schools shall also conform to the following conditions regarding room size play ground: - (1,) The class room size of a primary school seeking recognition shall be minimum 30 sq. mtrs and in case of middle school shall be 40 sq. mtrs.

(ii) In case the class room size is less that 30 sq mtrs or 40 sq mtrs a the ' case may be, the number of student in the class shall be restricted in such a way as to provide for 10 Sq feet area for each , student after leaving 60 Sq. feet Jor teaching area (in) the schools which do not have the play ground 4a11 make arrangements in the nearby municipal park and the onus of showing tie up with a play ground facility as well as arrangements for safe transport of the children, to and fro from this park/ground shall lie with the sdhooi. ".

7 A perusal of the circular dated 22 03 2013 shows that the directions have been issued by the Directorate of I ducatidn in compliance with the Sections 18 and 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A distinction has been drawn by the government between the children studying up to primary level i.e. class V and the children studying up to middle/elementary level i.e. class VIII. The distinction has been drawn on the basis of different needs and requirements of children studying at these two different levels.

8. Relevant provisions of the Act shows that a school cannot be allowed to function without obtaining a certificate of recognition or without conforming to the norms and standards mentioned in the Act or its schedules. It is clear that the norms and standards laid down are a prerequisite for recognition or functioning of any school and such recognition is subject to be withdrawn if the conditions are not complied with.

r 9. Regulating minimum land area to be possessed by all schools running classes up to the elementary level is a policy decision of the Directorate of Education of the GNCTI) keeping in mind the number of unrecognised schools functioning 'without , obtaining a:,, certificate of recognition, with a N 7iew to save the interests of the thousands of children studying in these schools As per the settled principles of law, the Courts should be cautious while substituting its own views as to what is better, wise and prudent in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.

10. The law is also well settled that Courts normally do not interfere with the policy decisions of the Government. Courts should be reluctant to act as Appellate Authorities to assess the correctness and suitability of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which is solely a prerogative of the executive. Courts cannot interfere with policy matters either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better or wiser alternative is available. The scope of judicial review while examining a policy of the Government is limited to the

extent to see whether it abridges the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the law of the land or is arbitrary ab initio. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.

11.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

12.

Appeal, is accordingly dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE ,J SANG MARCH _, 2017 7-\