Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, unequivocally instructed the DoE to abstain from intimidating recognized unaided schools concerning fee adjustments without prior approval. The court noted the order of a single judge that independently recognized private schools were not required to seek approval from the Department of Education (DoE) before raising fees, irrespective of the applicability of the land clause to them.

The bench of Justice C Hari Shankar held, “The principle that private unaided schools do not have to seek prior approval before enhancing their fees, so long as they do not indulge in profiteering or commercialization of education by charging capitation fees, as well as the proposition that there is a distinction between “commercialization of education” and making of profits, as enunciated in Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools, remains undisturbed till date, though the decision is under challenge before the Division Bench”.

The case originated from an order passed by the Department of Education (DoE), which granted temporary permission to unaided private schools to increase fees. This permission aimed to cover increased costs resulting from recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission, which mandated salary increases for teachers and staff. Subsequently, the DoE withdrew this directive only for schools located on land provided at discounted rates by public bodies. This withdrawal included a provision in the lease agreement requiring schools to obtain prior approval from the DoE before adjusting fees.

The primary concern addressed by the single-judge bench was: “Whether a school covered by the 'land clause' was required to take prior approval before increasing its fees."

The court, after examining the single bench order, noted that independently recognized private schools did not need prior approval from the DoE before increasing fees, regardless of whether the land clause applied to them.

However, the court also emphasized the importance of upholding judicial decisions for the rule of law. It noted the principle established in the impugned order, which allowed private unaided schools to increase fees without prior approval as long as they didn't engage in profiteering or commercialization of education. The court highlighted that this decision was under review by a Division Bench.

The court held that even if the DoE disagreed with the single bench's order, it was still obligated to follow it as long as it remained valid. Continuously issuing circulars threatening action against recognized unaided schools for fee increases without prior approval was deemed unacceptable conduct by the DoE.

“The attitude of the DoE in continuously issuing Circulars threatening recognized unaided schools with action in the event of their increasing their fees without obtaining prior approval of the DoE is objectionable, and cannot be allowed”, the court observed. 

Furthermore, the DoE was not allowed to persist in issuing such circulars in defiance of the impugned order and then attempt to argue the same points again when challenged. Any objections against the impugned order should be addressed before the Division Bench. 

The court further emphasized that until a restraining order was valid, the DoE was obligated to respect this stance. 

Accordingly, the court listed the case for July 31, 2024. 

Case Title: Action Committee Unaided Recognized Private Schools v Directorate Of Education (2024:DHC:3453)