Conundrum Between School Management and Parents

 

Due to the Covid19 pandemic, it cannot be denied that all sectors of the economy are forced to face these troublesome times, which is giving rise to many disputes. It is to mention here that from the very start of the pandemic among many sectors education being one of them is riding on rough waves. Several disputes are rising in this sector; one such dispute revolves around the fees of the academic year during pandemic.  On 3^rd May 2021, Hon’ble Supreme Court was finally able to settle one such dispute between Parents and School management in the case of Indian School, Jodhpur & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.  . Division Bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari gave a decision which allows school management to collect fees from the student as fixed under the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the act of 2016) and Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rule, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as Rule of 2017), however, the court also observed that since many facilities were not used as a result schools have saved operational costs during this period therefore Hon’ble Apex Court directed that there shall be a deduction of 15% on the fixed annual fee.

In the above-mentioned case Hon’ble Apex decided two sets of appeal, firstly wherein in the first one School Management have challenged the sections of the act of 2016 as well as the rule of 2017 being ultra vires of the constitution as being violative of Article 19(1)(g). Secondly wherein management challenged the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Rajasthan High Court and the order dated 28.10.2020, 07.07.2020 and 09.04.2020 passed by the state government regarding deferment of school fees including reduction of school fees limited to 70% of school fees and similarly 60% for state schools.

It is pertinent to mention here that with regard to the validity of the act of 2016 and rules of 2017 management alleges that the provision of the above-mentioned acts are against Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution so as to carry on the occupation of imparting education as it limits their autonomy to determine the school fees by the management of the private unaided school. The school management while challenging the validity of the above act refers to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of T.M.Pai Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka wherein school management alleged that the Hon’ble Court held that schools ought to have maximum autonomy with regard to the administration including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, and the fees to be charged. The government argued that the act of 2016 is regulatory in nature and that there is not such ambiguity in the provisions of act of 2016. Moreover, the government while referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka argued that such a mechanism for external regulation of fee fixation has been recognized and approved by this court. It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble Court while concurring with the arguments of the government-held that the act of 2016 in no way undermine the autonomy of the school management because school management will determine the fees structure taking into consideration all the factors given under section 8 of the act of 2016 and rule 10 of rules of 2017. The above-determined fees shall be approved by the School Level Fees Committee (SLFC) wherein it's ensured that fair and equal representation is given to all the stakeholders I.e. both school management and parents.  It is only when the determined fees are not approved by the SLFC then the school management has the option to file for adjudication before Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee (DFRC) under section 7 of the act of 2016 and Revision Committee. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Court held that the mechanism provided under section 7  is independent machinery for adjudication of the question as to whether the fee structure proposed/ determined by the management entails profiteering, commercialization, or otherwise.  Thus in short court held that school management has the complete autonomy to determine the fees structure and the same shall be approved by the SLFC, in case of difference of opinion management can file for adjudication before DFRC wherein it will check if there is a recovery of any excess amount beyond the permissible limit which would result in profiteering and commercialization.

Secondly in the second set of appeals wherein management challenged the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Rajasthan High Court and the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the state government regarding deferment of school fees including reduction of school fees limited to 70% of school fees and similarly 60% for state schools. Hon’ble Court only examined the legality and rationality of the order dated 28.10.2020 and applicability of the same to the academic year 2020-21. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court via judgment dated 18.12.2020 upheld the order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Director, Secondary Education. It was contended by the school management that the school fees charged for the academic year 2020-21 were fixed by SLFC by following the procedure as laid down under the act of 2016. It was also urged by the management that under the act of 2016 there wasn’t any provision under which state authority can amend the fees already fixed under the act of 2016. The Hon’ble Court while agreeing to the arguments of management held that there is no mechanism under the act of 2016 to review or reduce the school fees once approved by the SLFC or determined by the statutory regulatory authorities. Moreover, once the fees are approved by the SLFC it shall be binding on the stakeholders, however, Hon’ble Court held that the school management shall not collect fees for the facilities which are in fact not used by the students and demanding fees for such activities or facilities would come into the category of profiteering and commercialization. Therefore Hon’ble Supreme Court issues the following directions:

l The appellants   (school   Management of the concerned private unaided school) shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of   2016   for the academic year   2019-20, but by providing deduction of 15 percent on that amount in lieu of un-utilized facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 202021.

l The amount so payable by the concerned students be paid in six equal monthly installments before 05.08.2021 as noted in our order dated 08.02.2021.  

l Regardless of the above, it will be open to the appellants (concerned schools) to give further concession to their students or to evolve a different pattern for giving concession over and above those noted in clauses (i) and (ii) above.

l  The School Management shall not debar any student from attending either online classes or physical classes on account of nonpayment of fees, arrears/outstanding fees including the installments, referred to above, and shall not withhold the results of the examinations of any student on that account.

l If any individual request is made by the parent/ward finding it difficult to remit annual fees for the academic year 202021 in the above terms, the school Management to consider such representation on casetocase basis sympathetically.

l The above arrangement will not affect the collection of fees for the academic year 2021-22, as is payable by 124 students of the concerned school as and when it becomes due and payable.

l The School Management shall not withhold the name of any student/candidate for the ensuing Board examinations for Classes X and XII on the ground of nonpayment of fee/arrears   for   the   academic   year 202021,   if   any,   on   obtaining   undertaking   of   the concerned parents/students