Srinagar: The J&K High Court has asked the Education Department authorities to take “immediate and clear view” on charging transportation fee from students during the ongoing coronavirus crisis.
Disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Justices Ali Mohammad Magrey and Vinod Chatterji asked the Principal Secretary Education Department to take “immediate and clear view” on charging transportation fee from students during the ongoing coronavirus crisis.
The PIL filed by advocate Mudasir Nazir Shah, wanted directions from the court to debar the school managements from the collection of fees from the month of March till the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. He had also sought directions to the concerned authorities to refund the fee if already collected from the students.
The Additional Advocate General Mir Suhail submitted before the court that the government was already seized of the situation. The Principal Secretary has taken some measures for the benefit of the student community as well as the schools and their staff, he said.
He referred to a May 14 circular regarding the instructions on charging of tuition fee etc. by the government recognized unaided private schools during Covid-19 lockdown period.
The circular stated that only tuition fees shall be charged from students on monthly basis instead of quarterly basis for the lockdown period.
“No fees hike shall be made during academic session 2020-21 and that annual fees, if any, can be charged monthly on pro rata basis, after schools reopen,” it said.
The circular also stated “no school shall deny access to the online education material or classes to poor and deserving students unable to pay school fees due to prevailing situation.”
“The petitioner, it seems is oblivious of the circular, inasmuch as not an inkling is made about it in the petition. Be that as it may, (AAG) Suhail is right in saying that the competent authority is seized of the matter,” the court said.
The court, however, added that the circular seems to have left it to the discretion of the school authorities to decide as to who were the ‘poor/deserving students’ to be entitled to the benefit of (the particular) clause in the circular. The state lawyer has not been able to state clearly the view taken ultimately vis-à-vis the transport charges by the government since no student is presently utilizing the services of the private schools.
“It would have been in the best interests of the students’ community if the Principal Secretary would have taken immediate and clear view concerning these two issues. Nevertheless it is not too late,” the court said, adding, “it is expected that Principal Secretary would take immediate and clear view concerning the two issues.”
The court left it to the judgment of the petitioner to approach the Principal Secretary Education department if he still had any grievance or plea left unattended.
“It is expected that if any such representation is made by the petitioner, the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, will accord due consideration to the same keeping all the circumstances in view,” the court said.
