MKD National Public School and Another vs Govt. of NCT and Others

S. Ravindera Bhat, J.—The Petitioners seek an appropriate direction to the Respondents for the grant of recognition to a school known as the "M.K.D. National Public School".

The facts necessary for deciding this case are that the second Petitioner, i.e the Society was registered on 25.11.1987. It applied, on 22.2.1994 under Rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Rules, for establishing a new school. The Respondents issued an essentiality certificate on 9.3.1994 and after considering the materials placed before them, approved the Scheme of Management submitted by the Petitioners, on 1.7.1994. An application for recognition of the school was lodged by the Petitioner in terms of Rules 50 & 51 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1974 ("The Rules"). It was asserted that the Petitioners had filled all the relevant particulars including the check-list and, the building plan duly certified by the concerned District Authorities.

The Petitioners sought for recognition and upgrading of the school to a middle school level; it functions a plot measuring 113 sq.mtrs. According to the averments in the petition, the premises were inspected on three occasions i.e. September, 1994, December, 1994 and January, 1996. It is also alleged that according to the Respondents, the education imparted in the school was of a fairly high standard. The Petitioners rely upon the noting of the Deputy Director of the Education that the school was serving the cause of education in a thickly populated area and there was no Government or public school in the immediate vicinity of its location. Apparently, some objections were raised about the student strength which led to the Petitioner furnishing an undertaking on 7.3.1996 that not more than 20 students would be enrolled for each class. The Petitioners also rely upon another inspection carried out on 12.8.1996 by the Education Officer jointly with the Vice-Principal of a Government school which reported that the building had sufficient space to run the school and the size of the class rooms were more than 200 sq.ft. The Committee also reported that the built area of the School was 471.12 sq.mtrs, or 5071.24 sq.ft.

On 2.12.1996 the Director of Education declined the application for recognition. The Petitioners appealed against this decision; the Lt. Governor/ Administrator by his order remitted the matter for reconsideration by the authorities.

On 18.6.1998 after considering the materials, the Respondents by a speaking order rejected the request for recognition. The Special Secretary/Director of Education who passed the order, premised her findings on the fact that the school was located on a plot of 113 sq.mtrs. and was comprised of a five story building which did not appear to be constructed according to the norms prescribed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that the building fitness certificate produced was valid for one year at a time without any description of structural details. It was further noticed that the only open space available in the Institution was a terrace in an area of 540 sq.ft. where the school assembly was held. The same space also contained two portions where temporary class rooms were being held. The Director of Education further reasoned as follows:

It is apparent that the space is extremely congested. The fact of the little children having only open assembly space on the top most storey is hardly a desirable situation. It is certainly not an environment or atmosphere which is conducive to even the minimum level of educational requirements, it can also prove to be some sort of risk to the safety of the child and possibilities of accidents either from the top most terrace, or in event of fire, cannot be ruled out in case recognition is given, there will be every incentive to increase the students strength which at present is being shown in each small class room in such a manner as to remain within the approved limits of 10 Sq. ft. per child. It is no way our intention to case doubts on the authenticity of the information furnished. -by the appellant with regard to the students strength, but the possibility Of increase in students strength after recognition exists and will lead to great congestion.

In case recognition is given certainly there will be incentive for the school management to increase its strength in a building which has no assembly ground except on the top most floor. The legality or the building is also in question and its structural soundness has not been verified as per norms of MCD. Even a minimum strength of 30 students per classroom would not be possible to be accommodated in a sound and healthy environment.

Keeping in view of the facts of the case as above I find there is no reason to differ from the views of the recognition committee rejecting the proposal for recognition of the school.

The Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Administrator. By the order dated 2.9.1998, after hearing the parties and examining the records, the Administrator i.e the Lt. Governor rejected the appeal, basing his order on the following findings:

(a) I find that the Director of Education has reconsidered the appellant''s case in pursuance of order of my predecessor, and has brought out clearly the deficiencies found in the school. The details are mentioned in the impugned order itself. The appellant''s case has been rejected on the basis of these deficiencies. The order mentions that the building in question is located on a small plot of 113 sq. mtrs. only and further the construction has not been according to the approved norms of the MCD. Besides, it has been brought on record that the only open space available is the space on the terrace and that the children are forced to assemble on the terrace. This is certainly not a desirable situation as per as-the safety of the children is concerned. Besides, this kind of environment can hardly be said to be conducive for academic activities. I, therefore, fully agree with the views of the Director of Education that in case recognition is granted to the school it will serve as an incentive to increase the strength of the students which at present is being restricted in order to remain within the prescribed limits for the sole and obvious of obtaining recognition. The Director of, Education has passed a just and reasoned order in respect of the appellant school and I find no cause to interfere with it. The appeal is dismissed.

With regard to the contention that the MNDP. School located at Malviya Nagar Extension, Opp. Press Enclave, and which is alleged to be similarly placed and has been granted recognition, I would like the Director of Education to separately examine as to how such recognition had been granted when it is being alleged that the statutory requirements have not been fulfilled. The report about the MNDP School shall -be submitted to me separately.

It is contended by Mr. Sushant Sharma, learned Counsel that the impugned orders declining the recognition are unjustified. He relied upon the Inspection Reports and submitted that the concerned experts nominated by the Respondents found the infrastructure and the quality of education to be of acceptable standards. The local Municipal Authorities too had certified about the soundness of the building. Keeping in mind these relevant factors and the undisputed need for a school in the locality, the denial of recognition by the Respondents was arbitrary.

Learned Counsel submitted that at the relevant time when the application for recognition was made, no standards regarding the size of the plot had existed. In these circumstances, the Respondents position, in the present proceedings that middle schools should have a minimum land area of 400 sq.yds with an extra one sq.yard for each child, is not only without authority of law but utterly unjustified. Learned Counsel submitted that such standards were evolved by the Central Board of Secondary Education for prospective application after 1999 and could not have been applied to Institutions which existed and had sought recognition prior to their being framed and made effective.

Mr. Sharma relied upon two judgments of this Court reported as Bal Vikas Public School and Another Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another, and Glory Public School and Another Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt of NCT and Others, It was submitted that these decisions established that the guidelines and circulars relied upon by the Respondents, are mere executive instructions, unsupported by any express provision of law and cannot be made applicable from a date anterior from their making. Learned Counsel contended that at the relevant time when the application was made the norm governing the issue prescribed that the area for school should be 250 sq.yds with an additional space of 1 sq.yard for each student. Thus the total area according to the prevalent standard, when the application was made, could have been 441 sq.yds; the Petitioners building undisputedly measures 471 sq.yds.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied heavily on the impugned decision of the Administrator as well as the order of the Director of Education declining the application. It was submitted that even assuming absence of standards at the relevant time, the authorities were of the opinion that the building and other infrastructure of the school were uncongenial and not conducive for education. The total land area itself was 113 metres and the building was a five story one. Counsel submitted that it is doubtful as to whether such buildings could have been sanctioned at all having regard to the Municipal bye-laws. In any case, regardless of whatever be the standards, the respondents acted within their jurisdiction, after considering the relevant facts, that it would not be in public interest to grant recognition to the Petitioner-School.

The application filed by the Petitioner in 1994 along with the check-list discloses that the school apparently charges about Rs. 130-140 for Class-I,II,III to Class V. In addition it charges annual fees of Rs. 100/- per student. It is no doubt true that Inspection Teams visited the site on three occasions; they have mentioned about the school fulfilling the conditions for recognition and the minimum space guidelines issued in this regard by the CBSE. The Respondents have placed on record the copy of a document dated 5.1.2000, whereby the minimum space standard for recognition of various categories of schools has been fixed. According to this determination, middle schools i.e. classes from pre-primary to Class VIII should operate from buildings/premises with single story and have atleast 400 metres of land.

The question is whether the standard so evolved in 1999-2000, should be made applicable in the present case. In Bal Vikas Public School''s decision, the school in question had applied for affiliation; it had 1622 sq.mtrs. It sought for upgradation to Senior School level. The CBSE standards, framed in 1999 were made applicable. The norms mandated that such schools should have atleast 3,000 sq.mtrs of land. This Court was of the opinion that the change in policies; are mere executive instructions which cannot be equated with rules and, therefore, any change radically altering the norms cannot adversely impact the individuals or Institutions. The same reasoning was applied in Glory Public School''s case.

Now there can be no dispute with the proposition that the circulars and guidelines prescribing minimum standards as in the present case are not statutory in character. Therefore, they cannot be equated with statutes. However, this distinction alone, in my opinion is not sufficient for the Court to conclude that an applicant seeking recognition, has some sort of overriding right to be treated or considered in accordance with the pre-existing policy regime. Undoubtedly, there are no express norms governing minimum land standards. Yet, keeping in mind the object underlying the enactment (the Delhi School Education Act) enables education of a certain minimum standard, the authorities under the Act and Rules are bound to consider applications on a case by case basis and fully satisfy themselves that the School or the Institution concerned is adopting '' the best practices to sub-serve the larger objective of quality education. To this end the authorities should be satisfied that the school is possessed of the required infrastructure, in terms of building, teaching aids and peraonnel. If these general objectives were to be kept in mind, the decision of the Respondents that the school''s assertion of providing proper education, cannot be accepted, in my mind can hardly to be faulted with. Undisputedly, the plot used by the Petitioner measures only 113 sq.mtrs. It proposes a student strength of 190. It does not own open space for use as a playground, which is so essential for children, particularly of that age group. The picture which emerges is of a cooped and cramped accommodation that can hardly sub serve the larger public interest in quality education, notwithstanding to the assertion in contrary by the Petitioners.

As far as the reasoning in the reported decisions is concerned, I am of the opinion that although facially the reasoning that later executive instructions cannot be applied to anterior situations and can be applied prospectively is unacceptable, yet the nature of such policy would have to be borne in mind while deciding individual cases. Here what we are considering is one of the most critical issues that concerns over Society i.e. quality of education. Every society, India being no exception, is subjected to dynamic process where the executive agencies incrementally learn on the basis of experience. As a result, milestones and objectives are often have to be re-visited and re-defined. The case in hand is one such instance where after consideration the CBSE and the authorities deemed it appropriate to prescribe that the minimum expandable plot size for middle schools should be 400 sq.mtrs. The Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 should be slow in interdiction with such expert determination. In the absence of established malice, arbitrariness, adoption of unfair procedure and illegality, the Court should refrain from meddling with determinations in these fields.

It is now established that even in the realm of policy making, if the executive or its agencies at some point of time spell out certain standards or criteria leading the citizen or a group of individuals to apply for certain benefits, there is no fetter upon the executive save the principles applicable to Article 14 and the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - from rethinking and exercising its bonafide powers while reviewing its decisions. Thus (see Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others,

In Howrah Municipal Corpn. and Others Vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others, the Supreme Court ruled that an applicant seeking sanction of his building plans cannot purport to be aggrieved if during the pendency of his request the norms are changed and the Municipal Authorities insist on applying the changed norms ultimately leading to rejection of the plan. It was reasoned that in the absence of such a challenge to the change of norms or in the absence of mala fides, there is no inherent or vested rights to insist that pre-existing norms or rules should be followed.

Apart from the above consideration, if the Petitioners contentions in this regard were to be accepted, the executive would be functioning in different time wraps as it were. The processing of applications for recommendations would then necessarily have to relate to individual claims and the standard applicable would be subjective to each of them instead of a uniform objective criteria - hardly a desirable result in the field of education and one wholly inconsistent with stability in administrative policy and functioning.

In view of the above findings I am of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be faulted. The Petition has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Order dasti.