{"id":231703,"date":"2020-07-02T19:00:49","date_gmt":"2020-07-02T13:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=231703"},"modified":"2020-07-10T10:36:35","modified_gmt":"2020-07-10T05:06:35","slug":"ph-hc-private-un-aided-institutions-that-are-not-providing-online-classes-during-lockdown-period-are-also-entitled-to-collect-tuition-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/02\/ph-hc-private-un-aided-institutions-that-are-not-providing-online-classes-during-lockdown-period-are-also-entitled-to-collect-tuition-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"P&H HC | Private un-aided institutions that are not providing online classes during lockdown period are also entitled to collect tuition fees"},"content":{"rendered":"

Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/b>: While deciding the instant petitions filed by the several unaided private schools and educational institutions, all of which challenged the directions issued by the Director, School Education, wherein the schools were required to not charge any tuition fee for the lockdown period; Nirmaljit Kaur, J., held that direction to the privately unaided Institutions who are not giving online classes not to charge tuition fee for the lockdown\/curfew period is discriminatory and arbitrary, as there is no rationale in laying down such a classification especially when the obligations and basic expenses of all private un-aided schools remain the same irrespective of whether they are conducting online classes or not.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The petitions challenged the DSE Memo dated 14-05-2020. Apart from the aforementioned direction regarding tuition fee, the Memo also directed the schools to not increase the school fees for the 2020-21 Session and not to remove any teacher or reduce their salaries. The counsels for the petitioners raised questions on the authority of the State Government to issue such Memo and argued that the Directions were arbitrary and defy any logic. They contended that it is an inherent right of a private school to generate funds for their functioning and financial obligations including salaries of the teaching and non teaching staff. For the respondents, Advocate General Atul Nanda argued that Article 162 empowers the State to issue directions on matters enumerated in List II of State List of the Seventh Schedule, which also extends to List III-Concurrent List, except as provided in the Constitution itself or in any law passed by the Parliament. The respondents further argued that policy decisions cannot be tested under Article 226 of the Constitution. <\/span><\/p>\n

They further contended that the petitioners do not have a uniform fee structure and the breakup of school fee and expenses for each school also differ. R.S. Bains, counsel for the parents who had been impleaded as party respondents, submitted that the parents should not be made to pay for the services which have not been rendered, especially when either some of the schools did not offer online services or because they reside in remote areas where the online facilities are not available.<\/span><\/p>\n

Perusing the contentions of the parties, the Bench deemed it fit to lay down the following guidelines regarding the issue- <\/span><\/p>\n