Supreme Court on Transfer of Recognition of Derecognized Ashram Schools: Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 203
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a state government transfer the recognition of a closed-down Ashram School to another entity, especially when the school is to be moved hundreds of kilometers away? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue concerning the transfer of educational institutions. The court examined the legality of transferring the recognition of a derecognized Ashram School to a new entity, effectively allowing it to operate at a distant location. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Dinesh Maheshwari, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

A Primary Ashram School, Prabodhankar Thakare Prathmik Ashram Shala, run by Banjara Magasvargiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, faced scrutiny due to irregularities. In 2010, the school’s recognition was withdrawn, and its students were directed to be absorbed into nearby schools. Subsequently, the employees of the derecognized school were also absorbed into other government-recognized primary Ashram Schools. However, in January 2012, the Government of Maharashtra passed a resolution to transfer the closed Ashram Shala to Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sanstha, located about 400 km away. This transfer included the school’s recognition, effectively allowing the new entity to operate the school at a distant location. The employees of the erstwhile Ashram Shala challenged this transfer, leading to the present case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The employees of the derecognized Ashram Shala challenged the Government Resolution dated 02.01.2012 and the subsequent communication directing them to report at the new location, by filing Writ Petition No. 3728 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The High Court stayed the communication on 24.04.2012. Despite the stay order, the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, issued communications to various schools where the employees were absorbed, directing them to relieve the employees. The High Court accepted the employees’ challenge and quashed the Government Resolution dated 02.01.2012, directing the State authorities to release the salaries of the employees and issue proper absorption orders in schools near the derecognized Ashram Shala or allow them to continue at their previous places of absorption. The High Court relied on its earlier decision in Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. The State of Maharashtra and Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2007, which outlines the conditions for transferring employees of primary and secondary residential schools. The relevant conditions are:

• “1. The government may permit or consider another option to grant other place to the Ashram run by the institute if the population is enough and the plan has been granted by the government, and considering all the facilities of that Ashram.”
• “2. The location from where the Ashram is functioning and its undertakings and if there is a necessity to requisite that land or there is any danger of earthquake flood natural calamity or”
• “3. If the population of the place where the Sanstha is located is by any reason lessened or moved to some other place/village and if the population becomes less than 50% or”
• “4. If there is any scarcity of basic needs such as availability of land, water, electricity or any other tension such as communal tension and or if that place is not safe for there is occurrence of tension frequently, within the area of 10 k.m., the Director of that Division of the government can permit to start the functioning of the Sanstha if there is all the required facilities.”
• “5. The permission can be sought by the director of the public welfare (local) authority to shift the location of the Sanstha within the area of 10 km. if the basic facilities such as water, electricity, ground, building are available at that place.”
• “6. If there is an application from the Sanstha or if it faces the problems as mentioned in para 1 such as lack of basic necessities, or the population of children is reduced or the place has gone into Government requisition plan etc. then in that case the govt. authority can consider the permission to shift the place of the Sanshtha.”
• “7. The authority will have the power to grant the permission under extraordinary conditions or situations.”
• “8. If the grant has not been given to any Sanstha once it has shifted its base, the responsibility of the payment of salaries of the teachers and staff shall be wholly on the Sanstha itself.”
• “9. If the location of the Sanstha (Organisation) is changed without seeking the permission of the authority then in that case it will be held illegal and for that the Govt. authority will not be responsible for any query which may be raised on issues such as staff, immovable property population of the children. And the permission given to that organization will stand cancelled. The govt. authority will have the right and power to hand over the functions of the Sanstha to some other Sanstha/Organization.”

The High Court noted that this resolution did not address the transfer of a derecognized or closed school. Additionally, the court observed that the transfer of recognition was being treated as a business license, which is not permissible.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Sansthan):

• The appellant contended that the Government Resolution dated 02.01.2012 was a valid exercise of power by the State Government.
• The appellant argued that the transfer of the Ashram Shala was within the competence of the State.

State of Maharashtra’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Resolution dated 02.01.2012 was perfectly within its competence and was a proper exercise of power.

Employees’ Arguments:

• The employees argued that the transfer was illegal and violated the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2007.
• The employees contended that the transfer was not preceded by any circulation about the intention to transfer, which would have enabled other institutions to explore the possibility of putting in their claims.
• The employees relied on the decision of the High Court in Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., which held that the recognition of a derecognized school cannot be transferred.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the transfer of recognition of a derecognized Ashram School to another entity was legal and valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the decision in Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [2012(6) Maharashtra Law Journal (Mh.L.J) page no. 836]*, which held that the recognition of a derecognized Ashram School cannot be transferred.
• The Court interpreted the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2007 and found that the transfer was not in accordance with its provisions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to ensure fairness and transparency in the transfer of educational institutions. The Court emphasized that the recognition of an educational institution is not a business license that can be transferred arbitrarily. The Court also considered the welfare of the students and employees involved.

The following table ranks the sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the transfer was within the competence of the State, emphasizing the need for a transparent process. The Court also considered the practical implications, such as the distance of 400 km, which would affect the students enrolled in the Ashram Shala.

The Court quoted, “The permission to an Ashram Shala was taken as if it was a business licence which could be utilized at any place.”, highlighting the flawed approach of the State Government. The Court further stated, “In terms of Government Resolution dated 01.08.2007, the applications for transfer would normally be considered within a distance of 10 kms. In the present case, the distance itself is 400 kms. and for a Primary Ashram Shala it would not be proper to expect the children enrolled in the Ashram Shala to be transferred to a new place.” and “Further, there was no school in existence at the place where the transfer was effected and an entity that was based in a completely different district was allowed to set up a new Ashram Shala.”

The Court did not have a dissenting opinion. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The recognition of a derecognized Ashram School cannot be transferred to another entity as if it were a business license.
• Transfers of educational institutions must follow a transparent and fair process, as outlined in relevant government resolutions and guidelines.
• The welfare of students and employees must be a primary consideration in any decision regarding the transfer of educational institutions.
• The State Government must frame appropriate guidelines for the transfer of managements of Ashram Schools.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of transparency and fairness in the transfer of educational institutions and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The school run by the appellant may continue till the academic session 2019-2020 but shall not be allowed to function from the academic session 2020-2021.
2. The State authorities are directed to invite proposals to set up a new school or conduct the closed school, giving preference to those who wish to re-start or set up a new Ashram School at a location in conformity with Resolution dated 01.08.2007.
3. The employees who are presently transferred to the school of the appellant shall always be treated to be in continuous service from 02.01.2012.
4. All those employees shall be part of the school presently being run by the appellant till the conclusion of academic session 2019-2020 and their services shall be absorbed in any school wherever there are vacancies, or to the school which would either be re-started or newly set up.
5. The employees shall be entitled to salary and emoluments for the period that they had rendered service and 25% of back-wages for the period they could not/did not render service.
6. All the arrears of salary and emoluments shall be released by the State Government to the employees within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the recognition of a derecognized Ashram School cannot be transferred to another entity as if it were a business license. This judgment reinforces the principle that educational institutions must be transferred through a fair and transparent process, ensuring the welfare of students and employees. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this case clarifies the application of existing principles in the context of Ashram Schools.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that the transfer of recognition of a derecognized Ashram School to another entity was illegal. The Court emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in such transfers and directed the State Government to follow a proper procedure for setting up new schools or re-starting closed ones. The Court also ensured that the employees’ interests were protected by directing the payment of their salaries and back-wages.