Kerala High Court: In a writ petition dealing with whether an educational institution be allowed to function without obtaining the mandatory recognition from the Government concerned under Section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Harisankar V. Menon, J., held that the institution in question is not entitled to run without valid recognition and accordingly directed the competent authorities to shut down the educational institution, while permitting it to continue only for the academic year 2025—20626 to enable alternate arrangements.
Background
The petitioners approached the Court challenging the operation of an educational institution by Respondents 5 and 6, alleging that they were running it without the requisite licence or recognition mandated under the RTE Act, as revealed in a report submitted by the Assistant Educational Officer to the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer in his proceedings found that the educational institution was being run without any recognition, and that appropriate action was required in the matter. They sought for a direction to the District Collector to act on the report and further proceedings held on it and to the District Educational Officer.
A subsequent writ petition was filed by the educational institution challenging the proposed direction issued by the District Collector directing the closure of the educational institution and issuance of transfer certificates to the students studying there. The institution contended that since the District Collector had already passed orders based on the proceedings by the District Educational Officer, the writ petition itself was infructuous. It placed reliance on an accreditation granted by the National Institute of Open Schooling dated 28-11-2024, to contend that the school was running with valid recognition and therefore could not be shut down.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted an earlier order dated 17-7-2024 in the present writ petition, wherein it was clarified that the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the educational authorities acting if the institution is functioning without recognition. The Court referred to Section 18 of the RTE Act, under which every school or educational institution is required to obtain appropriate recognition from the Government concerned.
The Court observed that it was undisputed that the educational institution was being run without valid recognition from the Government concerned, and noted the averments contained in the educational institution’s counter affidavit stating that the said institution was imparting preschool education to about 300 students teaching Quran and allied subjects. The Court relied on Trustee, Hidaya Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala1, wherein the Court had frowned upon the conduct of educational institutions functioning in derogation of the Act and had emphasised that no school which is required to have recognition shall impart any religious instruction or religious study without permission from the State Government.
The Court observed that the educational institution was not entitled to run it without a valid recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act. Consequently, the Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the competent authorities to shut down the educational institution. Further, recognising that reasonable time would be necessary to make alternate arrangements, the Court permitted the institution to continue operating the school for the academic year 2025—2026. The Court also dismissed the subsequent interconnected writ petition filed by the educational institution.
[Moithunnykutty v. District Collector, WP(C) No. 21615 of 2023, decided on 2-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: S.K. Adhithyan, Manu Mohan (M-1378), Shahina Noushad, Krishna S. Karunakaran, Jai Prakash Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Jayasree K.P., P.S. Abdul Kareem, John Joseph, Nazif K.N., Advocates.