RUPSA KARNATAKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is stated to be the Registered Unaided Private School Management Association and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are stated to be registered Trusts which are running educational institutions. They have filed this writ petition seeking following prayers:

(2.) Sri.S.Basavaraju, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that once first recognition issued under Sec. 36 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') expires, the educational institutions running private unaided and aided schools are required to renew such recognitions and for the said purpose they are required to file applications. He further submits that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Registration) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules 1999'), the recognition once granted under Sec. 36 of the Act shall be in Form II and shall be for a minimum period of ten years. He submits that even the first recognition which is renewed subsequently will also be for a period of ten years. It is his submission that on account of Circular dtd. 30/11/2021/2/12/2021 bearing No. [xxx] 01:2021-22 (Annexure-P to the writ petition), respondent No.1 is insisting upon the petitioners and managements running schools to secure recognition for the schools every year. He submits that in that view of the matter, petitioners are seeking a declaration that respondents have no power to insist on annual/yearly renewal recognition granted under Sec. 36 of the Act and, similarly, they are put to the necessity of seeking a direction to respondents to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act and Rules 1999. He therefore submits that writ petition is entitled to be allowed and direction as sought for is required to be issued to the respondents.

(3.) Learned AGA - Sri.B.V.Krishna appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has taken me through the detailed statement of objections filed by him and further contends that in view of the flagrant violation of various terms and conditions mentioned under Sec. 36 of the Act by the petitioners and the other managements running similar schools, respondents are facing lot of problems and therefore, Circulars are being issued from time to time drawing the attention of private aided/unaided managements running educational institutions in the State calling upon them to adhere to the requirements under the Act as well as Rules 1999. He further submits that contention of petitioners is that respondents are insisting on seeking renewal of recognition granted on yearly basis is completely misconceived and in this behalf he specifically draws my attention to page No.4 of statement of objections filed by him. He also submits that State is anxious about the interests of students and therefore the competent authorities of respondents are making periodical inspections of educational institutions and on several occasions deficiencies were found and therefore, several Circulars were also issued and it is only on account of petitioners misunderstanding the purport of the same, writ petition has been filed seeking untenable directions. He also emphatically submits that there is no question of State itself acting contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules 1999 and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submitted that respondents are also bound to implement the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AVINASH MEHROTRA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2009) 6 SCC 398 produced at Annexure-N to the writ petition on pain of facing contempt proceedings.