Students may seek damage: Gujarat HC

Schools that do not have the permission to conduct classes for higher secondary section have to inform the students of the same. If they fail to do so, the students can seek damage before an appropriate authority or forum. This was ruled by justice SR Brahmbhatt of the Gujarat high court.

The court further added, "The petitioner (school trust) has not pleaded as to whether the students were informed that the school had requested for recognition and the same has been declined. Nor is it coming on record to state whether the school had informed the students of the lack of recognition."

Therefore, in this case, the court could not record any finding on this aspect or award compensation to the students. It has, however, made it clear that if the students seek compensation on the ground of being misinformed by the school, they would be entitled to the same under appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum."

The court was hearing a plea filed by Sabarkantha-based Azad educational trust which enrolled students from class IX to class XII in anticipation of recognition from the state education department. However, when it was refused permission, the fate of the students was left hanging in balance. The trust then approached the high court but failed to succeed.

The petition was rejected after the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (GSHSEB) raised the contention that the trust cannot seek permission on the pretext of protecting the future of students who were already enrolled. They, in fact, directed the trust to give damages to the students.

While rejecting the plea, the court further said, "It is indeed unfortunate that the school management, in utter disregard of the provisions of law, commenced classes and enrolled students without permission. The students who have been enrolled by the school have not come to this court nor have they made any grievances with regard to action of the board."

The court added, "Starting of classes, secondary school and higher secondary school in the month of June, 2010 was in blatant disregard of the rule of law, whereby, the petitioner in fact, enrolled the students in those classes."