E-Paper
HC hearing: Punjab halts excess fee recovery from private schools
The 5% ceiling will cover not only the tuition fees but also all mandatory charges and funds collected by private schools, the chief minister had said, after governor’s nod to the ordinance proposed by the AAP government.
The Punjab government on Tuesday assured the high court that it would not implement decision of retrospective excess fee recovery from private schools in the state till the September 22 hearing.
The undertaking was given during the resumed hearing of a clutch of petitions filed by schools’ associations, including Federation of Private Schools, Punjab, challenging July 13 ordinance by the government. The ordinance mandated recovery of excess fee charged by private schools and same had to be refunded to the students. The government had also announced that regulatory committees headed by deputy commissioners (DCs) would scrutinise private school fee across all districts. Besides this, the government had said that annual private school fee hikes have been legally capped at 5%, and institutions are required to refund parents in cases where cumulative fee increases have exceeded 15% over the last three years.
The 5% ceiling will cover not only the tuition fees but also all mandatory charges and funds collected by private schools, the chief minister had said, after governor’s nod to the ordinance proposed by the AAP government.
If schools don’t adhere, then fines ranging between ₹50,000 and ₹1 lakh will be imposed and later affiliation will be cancelled, chief minister Bhagwant Mann had said, adding that the decision will cover 7,800 private schools in the state, directly benefiting over 32 lakh students and their parents.
The schools had argued that under Section 5-B of Punjab Regulation of Fee of Un-aided Educational Institutions Act, 2016, the recovery of excess fee from the different un-aided private schools of the state has been mandated that was already deposited by the students.
The same has been mandated with retrospective effect for the last three years, which is not permissible under the law, the court was told, adding that the government action is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and arbitrary in nature, particularly on the ground of its retrospective effect.
The court was told that the session of the state legislative assembly began on August 3 and there was no justification for issuing an ordinance just two weeks before the starting of the session. The ordinance is not immune from the judicial review although the intervention of constitutional court can be sought only in very rare circumstances, the lawyers had argued, citing a seven-judges constitutional bench judgment of the apex court.
The court while seeking response by September 22, noted the assurance of senior advocate Chanchal K Singla, who appeared for the state, that “till the next date of hearing before this court, the implementation of the recovery with retrospective effect will not be made”.
