Schools given land before 1996 entitled to full EWS reimbursement, rules HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that all schools, including the ones allotted land prior to a 1996 scheme, will be entitled to get reimbursement for 25 per cent students admitted under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The court also set aside the Chandigarh Administration’s revocation of recognition to Saint Kabir School and Vivek High School.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi rejected the Administration’s contention that it was liable to reimburse schools only for 10 per cent of EWS admissions under its 1996 scheme and not the full 25 per cent mandated by the RTE Act.

The question before the court was whether private non-minority schools, granting admission to 25 per cent children from EWS up to elementary classes under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, were entitled to reimbursement for these seats. Also, whether the Administration was liable to reimburse only for 10 per cent students, as per clause 18 of its 1996 scheme under which land was allotted to private non-minority and minority schools in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Justice Sethi held that the 1996 scheme — framed under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act of 1952 for prospective land allotments — could not override statutory obligations under the 2009 Act.

“The scheme 1996 does not operate retrospectively or expressly include the institutions which were already allotted land prior to January 31, 1996. The endeavour of the Chandigarh Administration to bring all the operational schools under the ambit of clause 18 of the 1996 scheme is not sustainable under law and is incorrect,” Justice Sethi ruled.

He added 15 per cent EWS reservation under clause 18 was not a standalone policy but merely an ancillary condition for allotment of land to educational institutions prospectively. “The 1996 policy is basically a land allotment scheme, the conditions therein can only be applied to institutions that benefitted under the scheme. A specific clause, which is ancillary to the primary purpose of the scheme, cannot be treated as a general clause applicable to all institutions,” the court asserted.

Further rejecting the Administration’s argument that the conditions of land allotment letter issued prior to January 31, 1996, allowed retrospective application of clause 18, Justice Sethi asserted: “Nothing has come on record to show that schools allotted land prior to January 31, 1996, were operating in violation of the 1952 Act. For over a decade, the Chandigarh Administration itself never attempted to implement Clause 18 on such schools, which itself demonstrates their own interpretation.”

The Bench made it clear that the schools were statutorily bound to admit 25 per cent students belonging to the EWS category irrespective of any previous schemes or conditions linked to land allotment. Recording an undertaking from the Independent Schools’ Association and others that they would comply with the mandate of 25 per cent EWS admissions without fail, Justice Sethi added: “All the private non-minority institutions, i.e., Class I and Class III schools, will be bound to give admission to children of EWS category to the extent of 25% of total seats to be filled by such schools under the 2009 Act.”

The court further clarified the procedure for EWS admissions. It directed that the Administration would prepare and forward the list of eligible EWS students to the schools. Any objections raised by schools regarding the eligibility of a child would be considered by the

Administration, whose decision shall be final and binding: “The schools concerned will have no other option but to admit such children without there being any further correspondence with the Chandigarh Administration on the subject,” said Justice Sethi.

Independent Schools Association Chandigarh and other petitioners were represented by senior advocate Aashish Chopra with counsel Yash Pal Sharma and Swati Dayalan.