Aniruddha BoseJ. - (1.) The writ petitioners before us in the present set of writ petitions are the management of six private unaided schools. In this set of writ petitions they challenge the constitutional vires of Section 7A(1), (2) and (3) of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017), which became operational on 7th January, 2019. These provisions primarily relate to regulation of fees of private unaided schools through a committee, the composition of which has been stipulated in Section 7A(1) of the 2017 Act. It is stipulated therein that each school irrespective of the fact as to whether they are receiving aid from the State or not, should have a Fee Committee consisting of the following members:- (i).Representative of management of the private school nominated by such management; (ii).Principal of the private school; (iii).Three teachers nominated by the management of private school; and (iv).Four parents nominated by Parents Teachers Association.
(2.) The aforesaid provision further specifies that representative of the management of the private school is to be the Chairperson of the said committee. We are avoiding specific reference to tenure of the committee and other factors for the purpose of considering the prayer of the petitioners for interim order as these factors are not relevant at this stage. Under Section 7A(2) of the said Act, an appellate committee has been constituted mainly comprising of State Administrative Officers who are to review the decision of the fee fixation committee in the event there is a hike in fees beyond 10% from the previous year mandated by the committee.
(3.) Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [(2002) 8 SCC 481], Islamic Academy of Education and Anr Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors [(2003) 6 SCC 697], Modern School Vs. Union of India and Ors [(2004) 5 SCC 583] and Action Committee, Unaided Private Schools and Ors Vs. Director of Education, Delhi and Ors [(2009) 10 SCC 1] in support of his submission, which was also supplemented by Mr. Indrajit Sinha that the initial constitution of committee for fixing of fee is contrary to the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Argument of the writ petitioners is that the schools should be given autonomy for initial fixation of fee and the State in exercise of its legislative power can evolve a mechanism for the purpose of ensuring that capitation fee is not charged and there is no undue profiteering. He has relied upon paragraph 56 of the report in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) in support of the writ petitioners' stand.;