No provisional recognition for schools set up post RTE Act: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 3

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, did not envisage provisional recognition for a school set up after it came into force.

The High Court also allowed a petition filed by a school before directing the issuance of a fresh recognition certificate. Justice Sudhir Mittal of the High Court made it clear that the certificate would state that the recognition was permanent in nature.

Directs issuance of fresh certificate

• The HC allowed a petition filed by a school before directing the issuance of a fresh recognition certificate. Justice Sudhir Mittal made it clear that the certificate would state that the recognition was permanent in nature
• The ruling came on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by an NGO. The Bench was told that the petitioner had established a school at Ludhiana and granted provisional recognition for 3 years

The ruling came on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by an NGO, Ameliorating India, through counsel Naresh Ghai. The Bench was told that the petitioner-society had established a school at Ludhiana. After completion of all necessary formalities, a letter granting provisional recognition for three years was issued.

Ghai argued that the provisions of the Act did not envisage provisional recognition for a school set up after it came into force. Provisional recognition for three years was only for schools in existence prior to the Act coming into force. It was to enable them to meet the standards and norms prescribed by the Act. As such, the grant of provisional recognition was illegal.

Responding to the averments in the petition, the respondents placed reliance upon instructions dated January 15, 2020. Its perusal by the Bench showed it was issued to bring about uniformity as recognition was being granted in different cases for one/two years or permanently.

Justice Mittal asserted Section 18 of the Act said no school would be established without obtaining a certificate of recognition. An exception was there in favour of schools established and controlled by the government or a local authority. It further stipulated that recognition would be granted on fulfilment of norms and standards specified under the Act.

In case of contravention of any of the conditions of recognition, it was liable to be withdrawn. Section 19 of the Act was regarding norms and standards to be fulfilled. It stipulated that the existing schools would take steps to fulfil the norms and standards within three years from the date of the Act’s commencement, failing which recognition would be liable to be withdrawn.

“Neither of the provisions provides for provisional recognition. Thus, instructions dated January 15, 2020, are without jurisdiction. They are thus liable to be ignored,” Justice Mittal asserted.