Manager Of Aided School Can't Collect Fees From Students For Providing Transport, Toilets & Internet Facilities: Kerala High Court

The bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. Thus it held that the Manager of an aided School cannot interfere with academic matters and collection of fees by him for providing additional facilities is unsustainable in law. The Court said:

“Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Manager to contend that the provision of toilets, provision of computer facilities, provision of internet access and the provision of transport facilities are beyond his duties in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER. That apart, the learned Government Pleader is right in contending that the provisions of Chapter IX Rule 11 indicate beyond doubt that it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. The said Rule (Rule 11 (vii) of Chapter IX of the KER) also indicates that the amounts collected shall forthwith be remitted to the Treasury.”

Section 7 of the KE Act pertains to the powers of Managers of Schools and Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER deals with duties and powers of the managers of Aided Schools. Chapter IX Rule 11 of KER deals with the duties of Headmaster/Vice Principal.

Background Facts

The Manager and Headmistress of Kadambur Higher Secondary of Kannur district (aided school) had approached the Court challenging proceedings issued by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and letter issued by the Registrar of the Commission. The above orders were issued to furnish action taken report as per Rule 45 of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2012.

The aided school managed by the petitioners is located in a remote area with around 5000 students. It was submitted that students are provided with bus facilities, toilet facilities, computer labs with more than 100 computers and medical facilities for emergency care of students. It was submitted that no other aided institutions offer so many additional facilities to their students. However, a complaint was filed to the Commission stating that the school was collecting bus charges and infrastructural charges from the students in violation of the KER, KE Act and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

Pursuant to this, the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights issued an order recommending that charges collected from students as bus charges, electricity charges and infrastructural charges should be immediately stopped. The Order also directed the educational authorities to issue directives prohibiting the collection of any fees from students beyond those legally permitted and to abide by Rule 45.

The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that proceedings initiated by the State Commission were illegal and unsustainable. It was submitted that the school cannot function without necessary infrastructural facilities, transport facilities, computer lab, internet access, toilet facilities, adequate water supply, and electric supply. It was submitted that the RTE Act does not prohibit the collection of bus charges and other charges for providing additional facilities to students. It was also argued that aided schools should not be discriminated against other schools and they were allowed to collect charges for services provided since they affiliated with the CBSE.

The Government Pleader submitted that the school cannot collect fees or charges for providing facilities as per the RTE Act which would prevent students from completing elementary education. It was submitted that the school manager has to provide site, building, staff, equipment etc as per KER and KE Act.  The Government Pleader also relied upon a government circular stating that funds for maintenance of school vehicles, computers, computer labs, and additional charges should be met from Parent Teachers Association (PTA) funds and should not be collected from students. It was also submitted that the Commission has the jurisdiction to enquire into complaints and issue orders and was acting as per the RTE Act and Commission for Protection of the Child Rights Act, 2005.

Observations

The Court stated that there was no illegality and irregularity in the proceedings issued by the State Commission. The order of the Commission was passed after the inquiry was conducted into the complaint by two members, including the Chairperson. It said, “The only meaning that can be ascribed to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the 2005 Act is that, where the proceedings are held before the members of the Commission consisting of more than one, the decision of the Commission shall be the decision of the majority of the members, constituting such meeting or sitting.” The Court also noted that any irregularity in proceedings would not affect the merits of the case nor will it invalidate the proceedings of the Commission.

The Court further stated that the complaint against the school was maintainable since a complaint could be filed before the State Commission even on behalf of persons who may be affected by any act.

The Court referred to Section 3 of the RTE, Act 2009 which provides for the Right of children to free and compulsory education. It stated that as per Section 3 (2), no child shall be called upon to pay fee/charges/expenses which may prevent the student from pursuing and completing the elementary education. Thus, the Court stated that as per Section 3 (2) RTE, Act 2009, the Manager cannot collect charges for providing internet, transportation and toilet facilities.

The Court relied upon Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012), wherein the Apex Court stated that the intent of the legislature behind enacting Section 3 (2) was to ensure that there was no financial barrier to prevent a child from accessing education. It said, “… petitioners may be right in contending that there is no indication that the collection of fees for additional services rendered by the school did prevent any child from undergoing education it must be noted that the intent and purpose of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 is that no fee shall be collected from the students over and above that permitted by law.”

The Court stated that as per Rule 9 of Chapter III of the KER and Section 7 of the KE Act, it was the duty of the Manager of a School to provide site, buildings, staff, equipment, furniture etc. as per law. The Court further stated that as per Chapter IX Rule 11 of KER, only the Headmaster could collect fees from students which would be remitted to the State Treasury for making payment of salary to the employees.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, Vishnu B Kurup

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Thoufeek Ahamed, R Sreehari and Government Pleader Venugopal V

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292

Case Title: The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 37554 OF 2015

Click here to read/download Judgment