Supervisor Of Aided College Cannot Gather Charges From College students For Offering Transport, Bathrooms & Web Amenities: Kerala Excessive Courtroom


The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has held that by way of Kerala Training Guidelines, 1959 (KER) and Kerala Training Act, 1958 (KE Act), the Supervisor of an aided College can’t gather any prices or charges from college students for offering bathroom services, laptop labs with web services and transportation services.

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. noticed it is just the Headmaster, who can gather any charge from college students in an aided college. Thus it held that the Supervisor of an aided College can’t intervene with tutorial issues and assortment of charges by him for offering extra services is unsustainable in regulation. The Courtroom mentioned:

“Subsequently, it doesn’t lie within the mouth of the Supervisor to contend that the availability of bathrooms, provision of laptop services, provision of web entry and the availability of transport services are past his duties by way of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER. That aside, the realized Authorities Pleader is correct in contending that the provisions of Chapter IX Rule 11 point out past doubt that it is just the Headmaster, who can gather any charge from college students in an aided college. The mentioned Rule (Rule 11 (vii) of Chapter IX of the KER) additionally signifies that the quantities collected shall forthwith be remitted to the Treasury.”

Part 7 of the KE Act pertains to the powers of Managers of Colleges and Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER offers with duties and powers of the managers of Aided Colleges. Chapter IX Rule 11 of KER offers with the duties of Headmaster/Vice Principal.

Background Information

The Supervisor and Headmistress of Kadambur Greater Secondary of Kannur district (aided college) had approached the Courtroom difficult proceedings issued by the Kerala State Fee for Safety of Youngster Rights and letter issued by the Registrar of the Fee. The above orders have been issued to furnish motion taken report as per Rule 45 of the Kerala State Fee for Safety of Youngster Rights Guidelines, 2012.

The aided college managed by the petitioners is positioned in a distant space with round 5000 college students. It was submitted that college students are supplied with bus services, bathroom services, laptop labs with greater than 100 computer systems and medical services for emergency care of scholars. It was submitted that no different aided establishments provide so many extra services to their college students. Nonetheless, a criticism was filed to the Fee stating that the college was accumulating bus prices and infrastructural prices from the scholars in violation of the KER, KE Act and Proper of Youngsters to Free and Obligatory Training Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

Pursuant to this, the Kerala State Fee for Safety of Youngster Rights issued an order recommending that prices collected from college students as bus prices, electrical energy prices and infrastructural prices needs to be instantly stopped. The Order additionally directed the tutorial authorities to situation directives prohibiting the gathering of any charges from college students past these legally permitted and to abide by Rule 45.

The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that proceedings initiated by the State Fee have been unlawful and unsustainable. It was submitted that the college can’t perform with out crucial infrastructural services, transport services, laptop lab, web entry, bathroom services, satisfactory water provide, and electrical provide. It was submitted that the RTE Act doesn’t prohibit the gathering of bus prices and different prices for offering extra services to college students. It was additionally argued that aided colleges shouldn’t be discriminated towards different colleges and so they have been allowed to gather prices for companies supplied since they affiliated with the CBSE.

The Authorities Pleader submitted that the college can’t gather charges or prices for offering services as per the RTE Act which might forestall college students from finishing elementary training. It was submitted that the college supervisor has to offer web site, constructing, workers, gear and so on as per KER and KE Act.  The Authorities Pleader additionally relied upon a authorities round stating that funds for upkeep of college automobiles, computer systems, laptop labs, and extra prices needs to be met from Father or mother Academics Affiliation (PTA) funds and shouldn’t be collected from college students. It was additionally submitted that the Fee has the jurisdiction to investigate into complaints and situation orders and was appearing as per the RTE Act and Fee for Safety of the Youngster Rights Act, 2005.

Observations

The Courtroom acknowledged that there was no illegality and irregularity within the proceedings issued by the State Fee. The order of the Fee was handed after the inquiry was performed into the criticism by two members, together with the Chairperson. It mentioned, “The one that means that may be ascribed to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Part 10 of the 2005 Act is that, the place the proceedings are held earlier than the members of the Fee consisting of a couple of, the choice of the Fee shall be the choice of nearly all of the members, constituting such assembly or sitting.” The Courtroom additionally famous that any irregularity in proceedings wouldn’t have an effect on the deserves of the case nor will it invalidate the proceedings of the Fee.

The Courtroom additional acknowledged that the criticism towards the college was maintainable since a criticism may very well be filed earlier than the State Fee even on behalf of individuals who could also be affected by any act.

The Courtroom referred to Part 3 of the RTE, Act 2009 which offers for the Proper of youngsters to free and obligatory training. It acknowledged that as per Part 3 (2), no youngster shall be referred to as upon to pay charge/prices/bills which can forestall the coed from pursuing and finishing the elementary training. Thus, the Courtroom acknowledged that as per Part 3 (2) RTE, Act 2009, the Supervisor can’t gather prices for offering web, transportation and bathroom services.

The Courtroom relied upon Society for Unaided Personal Colleges of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012), whereby the Apex Courtroom acknowledged that the intent of the legislature behind enacting Part 3 (2) was to make sure that there was no monetary barrier to forestall a toddler from accessing training. It mentioned, “… petitioners could also be proper in contending that there is no such thing as a indication that the gathering of charges for added companies rendered by the college did forestall any youngster from present process training it have to be famous that the intent and function of Sub Part (2) of Part 3 is that no charge shall be collected from the scholars over and above that permitted by regulation.”

The Courtroom acknowledged that as per Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER and Part 7 of the KE Act, it was the responsibility of the Supervisor of a College to offer web site, buildings, workers, gear, furnishings and so on. as per regulation. The Courtroom additional acknowledged that as per Chapter IX Rule 11 of KER, solely the Headmaster might gather charges from college students which might be remitted to the State Treasury for making fee of wage to the staff.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, Vishnu B Kurup

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Thoufeek Ahamed, R Sreehari and Authorities Pleader Venugopal V

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292

Case Title: The Supervisor v Kerala State Fee For Safety Of Youngster Rights

Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 37554 OF 2015

Click on right here to learn/obtain Judgment

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *