Chennai: Madras High Court has issued a notice to state education department on a PIL seeking to implement provisions of Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 in respect of CBSE schools and act against institutes without any recognition in Tamil Nadu.
Admitting a petition filed by A V Pandian, the summer vacation division bench, comprising Justices Aruna Jagadeesan and S Vydyanathan, issued notice to the authorities, including Secretary,School Education Department,to reply in three weeks.
Pandian submitted that as per Section 18 of RTE Act, no school other than that established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local government, shall be set up or function without obtaining a certificate of recognition.
He said Section 19 of the Act prescribes norms for schools by which no school shall be set up or recognised under Sec 18 unless it fulfills norms specified under Sec 19.
He submitted that Tamil Nadu has also framed the rules based on the above Act and that different schools are run by various Boards in Tamil Nadu, apart from those affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
Pandian alleged that when CBSE rules and RTE Act makes it mandatory for all schools, including CBSE, to get recognition from state authorities, CBSE schools were functioning without proper monitoring or enforcement of provisions of Central Act.
The state government, which framed rules, had failed to prescribe the competent authority to grant recognition for CBSE schools under Rule 12 of State Rules, drawn up on the basis of the Central Act, he said.
The petitioner alleged that there was a lapse to enact provisions for CBSE schools with reference to grant recognition under RTE Act and to implement other measures. Stressing that there is statutory compulsion on the state government's part to implement the act and rules, he said schools affiliated to CBSE are also governed by provisions of Tamil Nadu School Fee Regulation Act.
Though he had made a representation to the State Government, there had not been any response and hence he was constrained to file this petition, the petitioner said.