HC notice to ICSE, Punjab board

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 25

Just about two months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took cognizance of a petition challenging 8 per cent cap on annual increase in school fee, fresh notices were issued to the ICSE and the Punjab School Education Board.

The Bench also issued a notice on another petition filed by CBSE Affiliated Schools Association against the State of Punjab and another respondent challenging the Act imposing the cap.

 As the petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by Independent School Association through counsel Tanu Bedi came up for resumed hearing, the State of Punjab put in an appearance. 

The state counsel told the Bench of Justice SS Saron and Justice Avneesh Jhingan that it was filing a reply to the contentions raised in the petition. The CBSE also appeared before the Bench in response to the notice issued on the previous date of hearing, but the ICSE and the Punjab board did not appear. The case will now come up for hearing on September 4.

The petition had earlier blamed the erstwhile SAD-BJP government in the state for wooing the voters by passing an Act, which imposed 8 per cent cap on annual increase in school fee. The petitioner claimed the cap, among other things, would prove detrimental to the growth of the private education sector.   

In the petition, Bedi on behalf of the petitioners claimed that the State of Punjab was completely oblivious of the ground realities. It passed the impugned Act hurriedly, only as a populist measure just before the state Assembly elections to woo the voters at the cost of threat to the quality education.

 Bedi added one of the questions before the Bench for adjudication was whether the impugned Act passed hurriedly to appease a section of voters without deliberations was “an illustration of political gimmick and, therefore, it could not be allowed to operate as it seriously undermined the quality of education?  

Going into details, Bedi asserted the cap, myopically considering the cost of inflation only, would also put a ceiling on increase in the salaries of staff and teachers, new methodology and new infrastructure required to be introduced in the schools in accordance with the changing times.

It would also have a negative impact on the financial growth of teachers, staff and other employees working in private schools besides hindering the growth of private education sector as management would not be able to generate surplus for expansion. She added the state till date had no legislation to provide or insist on quality education in schools or higher education. 

Fact file

Appearing before the Bench, petitioner’s counsel Tanu Bedi argued the impugned Act was against an 11-Judge verdict in the case of TMA Pai, which said the right to impart education was a fundamental right under Article 19. The Right to Education Act also protected unaided schools’ autonomy under Sections 21 and 22. But the impugned Act, applicable only to unaided schools, was in violation of this autonomy.