Shreemant Shivajiraje English Medium School And Jr. College Thr. Principal Shaikh A. Alam And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12405 OF 2025 1) Shreemant Shivajiraje English Medium School, (SSC Section Phaltan, UDISE CODE: 27310907303.
Through its Principal, Mrs. Shaikh Anjum Alam, Age. Adult, Occu. Service ] ] ] ] ] 2) Phaltan Education Society, through its Secretary, Mr. Sanjeev Vijaysinh Naik Nimbalkar, Age. Adult, Occu Agriculture R/o, Saroj Villha, Laxminagar, Taluka-Phaltan District -Satara-415523 ] ] ] ] ] ] ...Petitioners.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ] ] ] ] 2) The Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary.
] ] ] 3) Director of Primary Education, State of Maharashtra.
] ] 4) Education Oicer (Primary), Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara.
] ] ...Respondents.
------ Ms. Supriya Sandeep Koregave i/b Sandeep Koregave for the Petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for the Respondent-State. ------ Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.
Date : December 11, 2025.
1 of
Oral Judgment [Per : Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] 1.
Writ Petition is iled by school management which, from time to time, admitted students as part of implementation of provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2009" for the sake of convenience]. The grievance of Petitioners is that even after admitting adequate number of students under the Act of 2009 and having imparted education to them, Petitioners are deprived of the part reimbursement of fees/expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. 2.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioners have submitted proposal(s) / claim(s) with the Education Oicer for reimbursement of fees / expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009. That, the Respondent Authorities have processed some of the claims and reimbursed some part of claimed amount. She further submits that the Petitioner school management from time to time constantly reminded the said Authority to process the balance proposals and release the remaining claim amount. That, despite thereof, the Education Oicer has not credited the balance reimbursement amount.
3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that if the Authority merely sits on claims, the very purpose of socially beneicial scheme endorsed in the Act of 2009 would stand frustrated. 2 of
4.
In order to support the prayer made in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner relies upon the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (St.) No. 27849 of 2025 in the case of Progressive Convent School & Junior College v. State of Maharasthra decided by the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur on 6th November 2025. 5.
In Progressive Convent School (supra), we have observed as follows:- "10.
As such its evident that despite the claims/proposals having submitted by the Petitioner institution for the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009, those are neither cleared nor the Petitioner has been responded as to the result on those claims/proposals.
11.
In view of the above we are of the view that if the respondent authorities merely sit over the claims, the very purpose of the Act of 2009 would indeed stand frustrated. The respondent authorities must bear in mind that the provisions of 2009 Act are not meant to be profitable to the educational institute, but those are realistically meant to encourage the deserving educational institutions to run the school by accommodating financially weaker section students to impart free and compulsory education.
12.
Prime object of the enactment is to bring the kids of such financially weaker section of society in the flow of regular education process by implementing free and compulsory education policy. The predominant object of entitling private unaided schools to run their schools by accommodating poor and financially weaker section @ 25% of the student strength, and granting them reimbursement of the expenses per such student is obviously with a view to achieve the goal of education to all.
13.
The object of the Act is seen from the Section 3 of the 2009 Act which is reproduced as follows for the sake of convenience: - "3. Right of child to free and compulsory education. -[(1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including a child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education.]
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and 3 of
completing the elementary education.
[(3) A child with disability referred to in sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of section 2 shall, without prejudice to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996), and a child referred to in sub-clauses (B) and (C) of clause (ee) of section 2, have the same rights to pursue free and compulsory elementary education which children with disabilities have under the provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:
Provided that a child with "multiple disabilities" referred to in clause (h) and a child with "severe disability" referred to in clause (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999) may also have the right to opt for home-based education.]"
14.
Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act deals with the reimbursement of the expenses to the deserving educational institutions. For the sake of convenience, Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act is reproduced as below:- "12. Extent of Schools Responsibility for Free and Compulsory Education (1)...
(2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary education as specified in clause (c) of subsection (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per-child-expenditure incurred by a school specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2: Provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation.
(3)..."
15.
We are cautious of the fact that merely admitting certain percent students ipso facto doesn't entitle the Schools to receive the reimbursement from the respondent authorities. The Authorities are certainly supposed to examine legitimacy of each reimbursement proposal in the light of the government policy and the statutory requirements as are described in the 2009 Act. 16.
However the approach of the concerned respondent authorities of merely sitting tight over such proposals is certainly disapproved by us. If the R.No.6 or any respondent authorities noticed any deficiency in the proposals, it was for such 4 of
authority(ies) to call upon the Petitioner to inquire into, or to clear off the deficiency, as the case may be. But this exercise doesn't seem to have been done by present R.No.6; and as also by such authorities in a number of cases as could be seen from the cited orders, which is a worrying factor. 17.
We feel that the Act of 2009 is obviously a piece of 'Social Beneficial Legislation'. Unless the implementing authorities give true effect to the provisions therein by operating those, such a benevolent legislation and the object of the Parliament would not reach to its logical end. This tempts us to issue certain directions to the R.Nos. 2 to 4 to see positive and effective implementation of the Act of 2009." 6.
We ind that case in hand is not diferent from the Progressive Convent School case (supra). In the cited case, we have directed the State Authorities to formulate some mechanism to ensure efective implementation of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2009. 7.
Learned counsel for the responding parties would fairly agree that Education Oicer must deal with the proposal(s) iled by the Petitioners expeditiously, and there should be no hindrance nor any delay in processing the remaining proposal(s) on merit. 8.
In the above fact-situation, without going into merits of Petitioner's case we dispose this petition in tune with the directions given in the case of Progressive Convent School case (supra). Let the Education Oicer scrutinize the remaining claim proposal(s) iled by the Petitioners and reimburse the balance fees/expenses accordingly within a time-frame set out hereinbelow.
9.
Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with following directions:
5 of
(i) Petitioners shall approach the Education Oicer together with copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If needed, the Petitioner can ile additional documents in support of pending claims, and can even ile a comprehensive claim attached with such documents those are necessary in support of the claim.
(ii) The Education Oicer shall then forward and submit such proposal to the Director of Primary Education, State of Maharashtra for further action.
(iii) Within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Director of Primary Education or the concerned Authority as the case may be shall decide Petitioner's remaining claim proposal(s) on their own merit, to reimburse such balance fees and expenses under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009.
(iv) If the Education Oicer / Director of Primary Education, as the case may be, has any reasonable query, such query would be brought to the notice of Petitioners immediately which, the Petitioners would answer/satisfy accordingly. (v) We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the entitlement of Petitioners-school to receive the reimbursement nor have we made any observation as to the remaining amount of reimbursement, if any, receivable by the Petitioner.
[Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] 6 of