High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 GAU CK 0034

BISWAJIT PHUKAN and 2 ORS vs THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 7 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
WP(C) 2746, 4137 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 676 words

1.Heard Ms. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent Vivekananda Kendra

Vidyalaya, Golaghat and Ms. R. Bora, learned standing counsel for the CBSE.

2.

In these two writ petitions, a total of 113 number of guardians of the students of Vivekananda Kendriya Vidyalaya, Golaghat have assailed the

decision of the school authorities to hike the session fee from Rs.6000/- to Rs. 10300/- for Class- I to III, Rs.6000/- to Rs.10,300/- for Class- IV to V,

Rs. 6000/- to Rs.10,300/- for Class-VI to X and Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 11300/- for Class XI to XII. The total hike by taking into account the tuition fee

payable comes to 27% in respect of Classes I to III, 23% for Classes IV to V, 21% for Classes- VI to X and 15% in respect of Classes XI to XII.

3.

Ms. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the provisions of bye-law 11(3) of the Affiliation Bye-laws of the Central

Board of Secondary Education states that the present petitioners were not given a hearing before the aforesaid fee was enhanced.

4.

The learned counsel has taken another ground that as required under Section 14 of the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation

and Management) Act, 2006, (in short Act of 2006) the managing committee of the school had not framed the scheme containing the salary structure

as well as fee structure and submitted the same before the Director of Secondary Education for his consideration and acceptance.

5.

A further stand has been taken that the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 17.04.2017 before the President of the Vivekananda

Kendra Shiksha Prashar Vibhag stating that the said applicants seek for an urgent meeting with the president to discuss the problem of fixing the fee

structure, but the same has not been given a consideration.

6.

Regarding the first submission of the learned counsel that the parents were not given a hearing, it is noticed that Clause 11(3) of the Affiliation Bye-

laws of the CBSE requires the un-aided schools to consult the parents through parent’s representative before revising the fee. From the meeting

dated 07.06.2016 held by the school authorities, it is noticed that one Smti. Barnali Sarma had attended the meeting as the parent’s representative

and the said representative had not taken any stand against the raising of the fees. Clause 11.3 of the Affiliation Bye-laws requires that the

representative of the parents is required to be given a hearing and as Smti. Barnali Sarma had attended the meeting as the parent representative, we

are of the view that the requirement of the Clause 11(3) had been satisfied in the instant case.

7.

As regard the other ground taken that under Section 14 of the Act of 2006, the revision of the fee structure was not placed before the Director of

Secondary Education, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the school authorities states that the school authorities are agreeable to place the

same before the Director of Secondary Education, if so required.

8.

As regard the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation of the petitioners had not been attended, it is provided

that president of the Vivekananda Kendra Shiksha Prashar Vibhag shall give a personal hearing to any of the two representatives out of the 54

applicants to be chosen amongst themselves and explain the situation as to under what circumstance, the fees were enhanced.

9.

It is also taken note of that the Vivekananda Kendriya Vidyalaya is a nonprofit making school and the balance sheet of the school for the 2017-2018

indicates that the total amount received was Rs. 2,19,42,600/-, where the total payment/expenditure made by the school was Rs.2,38,61,806/-. The

figures available in the balance sheet is also an indication that the fee enhancement is not for the purpose of accruing any undue profit to the school

authorities. In terms of the above, both the writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.