Transfer Certificate Cannot Be Withheld Merely Citing Arrears Of School Fees: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has declared that Transfer Certificate (TC) of a child cannot be withheld by a School merely because fees are due to the School.

"Imparting education is the primary duty of the State. The Transfer Certificate of a child cannot be withheld by a School because the fees are due to the School. Every child has a fundamental right to get an education," Justice Basant Balaji observed.

The petitioner, a 13 year old student, had applied for the issuance of a TC to her, finding it difficult to continue with her studies in the School, after the change of the Principal of the School. The Principal however informed the petitioner's mother that the petitioner could not be issued the TC, since there were arrears of fees amounting to Rs.39,055/-, and that the same could only be issued after payment of the same. 

The petitioner's mother submitted that although representations had been filed before the CBSE Regional Office as well as the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) of the School, regarding the harassment the child had faced and the non-issuance of the Transfer Certificate, no steps had been taken in that regard. The petitioner's mother further averred that the dues had been cleared in the months of September and December 2022, and that there were no arrears. 

The petitioner's mother also produced a lawyer’s notice issued to her calling upon her to pay the balance fees within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, legal action would be initiated, as well as her medical reports indicating that she was undergoing treatment for cancer.

The respondents argued that since the petitioner had already completed 8th standard in the academic year 2022-23, her averment that she was yet to complete the same was wrong. It was submitted that she could not rely upon Section 5 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, since she had already completed her elementary education.

The respondents added that the School is an unaided (Self-Financing) Private School established by a minority community and run by a registered trust, providing education till 10th grade. It was submitted that the Institution depended upon the fees collected from the students for payment of salary to the teachers and for the expenditure incurred for running of the School.

"Students cannot insist on a Transfer Certificate without payment of the school fees. The reason for leaving the School, as seen from Ext.P1, is to go abroad. A student's fees in a Private School in Gulf Countries come to lakhs of rupees. The default amount is only Rs.39,055/- and the petitioner’s mother intends to somehow obtain the Transfer Certificate without payment of the fees and send the child to Gulf Countries for further studies," the Counsel for the respondents averred. 

While recognizing that an unaided School also has the right to get the fees which are legally due for its sustenance, the Court emphatically stated that TC could not be denied to a child to move to another School of their choice. It added that if any amount was due towards fees, the respondent Principal could file appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the same. 

"Coercive tactics cannot be insisted upon by the 2nd respondent (Principal) to make the petitioner pay school fees. It is seen from Ext.P5 that the school has already issued a lawyer’s notice to the petitioner’s mother to pay the entire fees due to a tune of Rs.39,055/- within 15 days, and it is also stated that failing which, legal action would be initiated. Ext.P6 shows that the petitioner’s mother, is aged 32 years, is undergoing treatment for cancer, and one of the certificates show that the approximate cost of the treatment would come to Rs. 12 lakhs. In such a situation, the child cannot be made a scapegoat and denied the right to education by withholding the Transfer Certificate. The 2nd respondent has no business to retain the Transfer Certificate," the Court observed. 

The Principal of the School was thereby directed to issue TC to the petitioner, and also granted liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of any pending amount. 

The plea was thus disposed of. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Navaneeth N. Nath, Abhirami S., and Gautham Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Mohan Jacob George, P.V. Parvathy, Reena Thomas, and Nigi George

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 566