Rajan Gautam And Others v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM-6786-CWP-2021, CM-8141-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-2400-2021 Date of Decision:- 28.10.2021 Rajan Gautam and others

...Petitioners

Verses State of Haryana and ors ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Tarun Walia, AAG, Haryana, assisted by for the respondents No.1,2,6 and 7.

Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate, for the respondent-CBSE.

Mr.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Mohak Badana, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Distt. Education Officer, Faridabad, for respondent No.6.

**** SUDHIR MITTAL, J .( Oral ) CM-8141-CWP-2021 This application has been filed for preponing the date of hearing in the main case which is pending for 21.01.2022. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and main case is advanced to today. The same is taken on board. CWP-2400-2021(O&M) The short grievance of the petitioners is that order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the Fee and Fund Regulatory Commission, Faridabad, is not being complied with. As per the said order, the respondent No.8School has been directed to charge fee as per fee structure existing in the Academic Session 2014-15 subject to final verdict. The education of the students shall also not be disrupted in any manner. NEELAM 2021.11.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-6786-CWP-2021, CM-8141-CWP-2021 -2in/and CWP-2400-2021 Learned counsel for respondent No.8 fairly states that the directions given in order dated 15.10.2020 have neither been reversed nor have they modified. His only argument is that subsequent directions have been issued by the State of Haryana and according to the said directions the respondent No.8-School is entitled to charge a higher fee than that prescribed for the Academic Session 2014-15.

The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that subsequent directions issued by the State of Haryana are general in nature. They do not override the specific directions issued vide order dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P-12) and hence no benefit of the same can be taken. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.8 to only charge the fee chargeable during the Academic Session 2014-2015, till the final verdict is pronounced by the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee. If the petitioners are not being permitted to attend online classes/physical classes on account of non-payment of higher fee demanded, they shall immediately be permitted to do so subject to payment of all arrears of fee at the rate chargeable in the Academic Session 20142015. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Respondent No.6 is present in person. Her presence is dispensed with.

(SUDHIR MITTAL) 28.10.2021 JUDGE neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEELAM 2021.11.02 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document