Allahabad High Court: State Not Bound To Provide Free Text Books, Uniforms To All 6th-8th Class Private School Students | RTE Act
The Allahabad High Court in the case .P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha.U.P.Officer Shri N.P.M.Vidy.Raebareli Thru. President Ankur Chaudhari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others observed that the State is not bound to provide free textbooks and free uniforms to all the students who are studying in unaided junior high schools which is being managed by the private management.
The bench comprising of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in the case observed and has added that it is not the duty of the state and local authorities for providing free textbooks and free uniforms each year only to such students who are being admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009.
The court also noted that it has been mandated in the abovementioned provision that 25% of seats in Class I in all private unaided schools following ICSE/CBSE/State syllabus would be allocated to children from disadvantaged groups and for weaker sections.
The court observed while the bench was dealing with the Public Interest Litigation filed by an association known as Uttar Pradesh Senior Basic Shiksha Mahasabha Uttar Pradesh.
However, the petitioner in the plea has prayed for a direction to the State-respondents to facilitate the claim of providing free textbooks and uniforms to all the students studying in class 6 to class 8 in an non-aided recognized junior high schools who are being recognized by the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
The court having perused the relevant provisions of Rules 2011 as also the provisions containing the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The court observed that it being the duty of the State and local authority is cast to provide free text books and uniform each year only to the to the students who are admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act i.e., on the students admitted up to 25% of the total strength from amongst weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society. Thus, it has also been made clear that such facility has been made available to only such students.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition being misconceived.
The counsels, Piyush Mishra, Shaktipal Rajpal appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, .S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey represented the Respondent.
