Holding

Opening class VIII converts the school into a secondary school, making Rule 31 applicable, and the Director must reconsider the application afresh.

Summary

The Shree Damodar Kalvaibhav Education Society runs Keshav Smriti School, which started as a middle school with classes V to VII. It applied to the Director of Education, Goa, for permission to open class VIII, which would convert the school into a secondary school. The Director rejected the application invoking Rule 31(3)(iii) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986, on the ground that three other schools within a 5‑km radius would be adversely affected. The Society contended that opening a new class is governed only by Rule 32 and does not constitute a new school. The Supreme Court held that adding class VIII transforms the institution into a secondary school, so the stringent criteria of Rule 31 apply. It also found that the Director had not considered all relevant factors and set aside the impugned order, directing a fresh consideration with possible notice to neighbouring schools. The appeal was disposed of with costs.

Issues considered

Whether opening standard VIII in an existing middle school amounts to opening a new school and thus falls under Rule 31 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986.
Whether Rule 32 alone governs the addition of a new class in such circumstances.
Whether the Director of Education considered all relevant factors before rejecting the application.

Subjects

educationschool rulessecondary stageRule 31Rule 32administrative lawopening of new schooldistance ruleappeal

Judgment

A SHREE DAMODAR KALVAIBHAV EDUCATION SOCIETY
v.
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOA AND ANR.

AUGUST 2, 2000

8 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Education :

Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986:

C Rules 2(J)(i), 31(3)(iii) and 32-Applicability of-Middle school-New
class-Opening of-Standard VII!, was sought to be opened in an existing mid-
dle school-Held: Standard VII! is a part of secondary stage under R.2( I )(i)
and, therefore, R.3!(3)(iii) is applicable and not R.32.

Rule 3!(3)(iii)-Middle school-New class-Opening of-Relevantfac-
D tors to be considered-Education society proposed to open standard VIII in its
existing middle school-However, Director of Education refused to grant per-
mission without considering relevant.factors-Correctness of-Held, Director;
Education must consider the matter afresh having due regard to relevant circum-
stances-Neighbouring schools likely to be prejudicially affected to be given
notice-Administrative Law.
E
Words and Phrases :

"Secondary stage"-Meaning of-In the context of R.2( I )(i) of the Goa,
Daman and Diu School Education Rules, I 986.

F The appellant-Society has been running a school, which began as a
middle school with Vth standard, and gradually every year permission was
sought to start Vlth and Vllth standards and approval was granted by the
authorities. The appellant applied for opening Vlllth standard in the school
but the respondent-Director of Education refused to grant permission on

G
the ground that opening of a new higher secondary school would adversely
affect the neighbouring schools and would be violative of Rule 31(3)(iii) of
the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Society. Hence this appeal.
-
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that starting the Vill
standard did not amount to creation of a new school but rather an addition
H
90
SHREE DAMODAR KALVAIBHAV EDUCATION SOCIETY'· DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. GOA 91
of one more standard to the existing school and, therefore, Rule 31 had no A
application; and that the case was covered by Rule 32.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The contention of the appellant-Society that it wanted
only to have a new class in the existing school, therefore, the norms laid B
down under Rule 31 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules,
1986 are not applicable and Rule 32 alone should have been looked into
by the Director, Education is not tenable. Even though tbe request of the
appellant is to have a new class in the exis~ing school but the real demand
of the appellant is to have a secondary school as the existing school is only
up to VII standard and if the school is to become a secondary school, c
norms laid down under Rule 31 are to be necessarily followed. The
contention of the appellant that starting of a new class does not amount to
a new school cannot be accepted for the reason that rigorous criteria
prescribed under Rule 31 are to be followed for starting a new school. For
opening a new class in the existing school, the appellant-Society need only D
to satisfy the authorities that there are certain physical facilities available
with the school and that there are sufficient students for startii;ig a class,
whereas under Rule 31, the authorities have to take into consideration
various other aspects and find out whether the opening of a new school is
necessary to meet the educational needs of that area. [95-F-H; 96-A-C]
E
2. As regards "secondary stage" an inclusive definition is given un-
der Rule 2(l)(i) so as to take in standards V to VII also, within the
secondary stage, and that would only indicate that even if a school is
having a middle stage consisting of classes IV to VII still it would be
deemed as secondary stage if there are classes from V to X. As regards the F
appellant's school there are classes only from V to VII, it does not fall
within any other category and it has to be held as a middle school. If it is
converted into a secondary school by addition of standard VIII, the guide-
lines under Rule 31 of the 'Rules' are to be followed as it amounts to
starting of new school having "secondary stage". [96-D-F]
,.. Vidya Prasarak Sama} v. Director of Education, W.P. No. 26/94 decided
G

on 25.7.1994 by Bombay High Court, overruled.

3.1. However, in the instant case, the Director of Education does not
seem to have considered certain aspects while passing the impugned
order. It is not known whether relevant factors are taken into considera- H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A tion while passing the order. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of
this case, the impugned order is set aside and the first respondent is
directed to consider the matter afresh. [97-D; EJ

3.2. The first respondent shall pass the revised order having due
regard to the relevant circumstances and; if necessary, shall give notice to
B the representatives of the neighbouring schools which are likely to be
prejudicially affected by the order, if any, to be passed by the Director,
Education. Further, the Director has to consider whether the students
who complete standard VII in this school can get admission in the other
schools and whether there would be adequate vacancies in the standard
C VIII in the other schools, after accommodating their own promotees from
standard VID. The order shall be passed sufficiently before the com-
mencement of the new academic year. [97-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4675 of 1998.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.98 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 86 of 1998.

Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant.

Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant-Society has been running a school
by name Keshav Smriti School at Alto-Dabolim, Vasco Da Gama, Goa since
the year 1994-95. The school began as a rruddle school with Vth standard and
F gradually every year permission was sought to start VI th and VIIth standard
and approval was granted by the authorities. On 15.11.96, the appellant-Society
applied for opening VIIIth standard in the school from academic year 1997-
98. The appellant-Society was informed that permission to open VIIIth stand-
ard had been rejected on the ground that there were other three higher second-
ary schools within a radius of 5 kms. from the appellant's school and as the
G opening of a new higher secondary school would adversely affect the neigh-
bouring schools and there would be an unhealthy competition among the
existing schools. The appellant was also informed by the impugned order that
an action to start a new school within the radius of 5 kms. from the existing
schools would lead to violation of Rule 31(3)(iii) of Goa, Daman and Diu
H School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter being referred as the "Rules"). The
SHREE DAMODAR KALVAIBHAV EDUCATION SOCIETY~·. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, C"'r<lA iHALAKRlSHNAN, J.193
appellant-Society filed a Writ Petition No. 275/97 before the Panaji Bench of A
the Bombay High Conrt challenging the order of rejection dated 14.5.97. The
said writ petition was later withdrawn by the appellant pursuant to a statement
made by the counsel for the Government that fresh guidelines were being
framed regarding the starting of new schools. In pursuance of a decision of the
High Court, certain guidelines were framed. A survey was conducted to find
B
out the educational needs of the localities and to identify the localities where
the school in different grades arc required to be opened in the State of Goa.
The appellant's case was examined and it was found that it was not desirous
to allow the appellant-Society to start a new school and the Director, School
Education passed an order on 26.11.97 and the appellant was informed that his
request to open a new school in 1998-99 cannot be considered. The Order dated c
26.11.97 was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 86/98
before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji. The said writ petition was dismissed.
This appeal is directed against that decision.

We heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel for the respondent.
The contention of the appellant's counsel is that the Director of Education, D
Government of Goa has wrongly rejected the claim of the appellant. The main
thrust of the argument of the appellant's counsel is that the Rule 31 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Education Rules, 1986 has no application. According to the
appellant, the request of the appellant was to start VIIIth standard which should
have been considered in the light of Rule 32 of the said Rules. The contention E
of the appellant's counsel is that the appellant-Society is having an existing
school and starting ofVIIIth standard in that school does not amount to creation
of a new school but rather an addition of one more standard to the existing
school.

In order to appreciate the contention advanced by the appellant's coun- F
sel, it is necessary to look into some of the relevant rules which are applicable
to the starting of new school and opening of new classes. In the State of Goa,
Daman and Diu, the schools are classified into five stages, namely, pre-primary
stage, primary stage, middle stage, secondary stage and higher secondary stage.
The primary stage consists of classes from !st to !Vth (both inclusive), the
middle stage includes classes from Vth to V!Ith (both inclusive), the secondary
G

J stage includes classes from Vlllth to Xth (both inclusive) and the higher
secondary stage includes classes above class Xth. The definition of the stages
has been given in Rule 2 of the said Rules. While giving the definition of the
secondary stage, the following definition which is given in Rule 2(l)(i) is as
under:- H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A "Secondary stage" means stage of school education having VIII-
X classes or V-X classes as the case may be; (both inclusive)."

The above definition indicates that even if in a particular school, both
middle and secondary stage classes are there, it would not be known as
secondary school.
B
Rule 31 deals with the guidelines relating to opening of new schools or
classes or closure of the existing schools or classes. Proviso to Rule 31 (3) says
that no school shall be permitted more than one class at each stage, namely,
primary, middle, secondary or higher secondary and after recognition, no school
shall be permitted to add one more higher class each year at each stage. Rule
c 31(3)(i) says that no primary school of that category shall be permitted within
a radius of 1 Km. and Rule 31 (3)(ii) says that no middle school of that category
within a radius of 3 Kms. The third proviso to Rule 31(3) reads as follows:-

"No secondary school of that category within a radius of 5 Kms.
from the existing schools, unless the Director of Education is satisfied
D that the existing school is overcrowded and there is no scope for
further expansion, or there is no easy access to the existing school due
to natural barriers like forest area, rivers with running water, or the
proposed school is entirely for the benefit of Backward Class Commu-
nity, Scheduled caste or Tribal pupils.
E Nothing contained in this proviso shall apply to unaided minority
schools."

Rule 32 deals with the opening of new classes in schools. The relevant
provisions are as follows:-

F ( 1) No recognised schools, not being an unaided minority school,
without giving full justification, shall open any new class or division
other than the ones which have received approval from the appropri-
ate authority, without obtaining prior sanction of the Director of
Education or any subordinate authority authorised by him.

G (2) In the case of unaided minority schools, opening of new classes/
divisions shall be subject to such norms as may be specified by the
Director of Education.
-
(3) the norms for granting additional divisions in Middle and Second-
ary Schools shall be as follows subject to any change on the recom-
H mendations of the Advisory Board.
SHREE DAMOIJAR KALVAIBHAV EDUCATION SOCIETY•: DIREC'ffiR or EDUCATION fiOA 11:\ALAKRISHNAN, f.J 95

I. xxxx A
IL XXXX
Provided that permission to open additional divisions shall be
granted by the Directorate of Education after satisfying himself about
the physical facilities available with the school and mere enrolment B
of students by a school shall not automatically make the school
eligible for the additional divisions and if the additional division is
opened by the School Management, without prior permission the
additional liability shall not be bo<ne by the Department.

(4) XXXX" C
The above provisions say that for starting a new class in a school or
to open an additional division of a class, the school authorities shall make
available certain physical facilities whereas starting of a new school is subject
to satisfactory completion of several criteria. The Director of Education must
be satisfied himself that the number of schools existing in the locality or in D
the neighbouring area where the new school is proposed to be opened, is
sufficient to meet the needs of that locality. The Director of Education is also
to consider whether the opening of a new school would be against the public
interest or not. It is specifically stated that while permitting new schools, the
Director of Education shall adopt the norms that no secondary school of that
category within the radius of 5 Kms. shall be there and unless the Director of
E
Education is satisfied that the existing school is overcrowded and there is no
scope for further expansion and there is no easy access to the existing schools
due to· natural .barriers like forest area, rivers with running water, or the
proposed school rs· entirely for the benefit of Backward Class Community,
Scheduled Caste or Tribal pupils. F
The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant
society wanted only to have a new class in the existing school, therefore, the
norms laid down under Rule 31 are not applicable and Rule 32 alone should
have been looked into by the Director, Education. This contention. is not
tenable for various reasons. Admittedly, the appellant started the school as a G
middle school and the Vth standard was started in the year 1994-95. VIth
standard was started in 1995-96 and the permission to open the VIIth standard
was given during the year 1996-97. The present request is to start VII!th
standard in that school which would convert the school to a secondary school.
Even though the request of the appellant is to have a new class in the existing H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A school but the real demand of the appellant is to have a secondary school as
the existing school is only upto V!Ith standard and if the school is to become
a secondary school, norms laid down under Rule 31 are to be necessarily
followed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that starting
of a new class does not amount to a new school cannot be accepted for the
reason that rigorous criteria prescribed under Rule 31 are to be followed f6r
B
starting a new school. For opening a new class in the existing school, the
appellant society need only to satisfy the authorities that there are certain
physical facilities available with the school and that there are sufficient students
for starting a class. Whereas under Rule 31, the authorities have to take into
consideration various other aspects and find out whether the opening of a new
c school is necessary to meet the educational needs of that area.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the definition
of the secondary stage mentioned in Rule 2( I)( i ), the appellant school shall
be deemed to be a secondary school and, therefore, starting of the VIIIth
standard in the school does not amount to the starting of a new school. Under
D Rule 2(1)(f), middle stage of the school is specifically mentioned as the stage
of school education from class Vth to V!Ith (both inclusive). As regards
'Secondary Stage', an inclusive definition is given so as to take in standards
Vth to V!Ith also, within the secondary stage and that would only indicate that
even if a school is having a middle stage consisting of classes IVth to V!Ith
E still it would be deemed as secondary stage if there are classes from Vth to
Xth. As regards the appellant's school is concerned, there are classes only
from Vth to Vllth. It does not fall within any other category and it has to be
held as a middle school. If it is converted into a secondary school by addition
to standard VIIIth, we are of the view that the guidelines under Rule 31 of
the 'Rules' are to be fol.lowed as it amounts starting of new school having
F "Secondary stage"

The counsel for the appellant drew !JUr attention to a decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay at Goa in Vidya
Prasarak Sama} v. Director of Education (Writ Petition No. 26/94 decided on
25.7.94) where it was held that Rule 31 has no application while starting of
G new class in higher stage. That was a case where the starting of standard
VIIIth, IXth and Xth in neighbouring school was challenged and the challenge
was negatived on the ground that distance rule under Rule 31 has no applica-
tion and it was held that opening of classes for higher standards cannot be said
to be opening of new school. We do not think that the Division Bench has
H correctly interpreted the Rule. If such interpretation is adopted it would only
SHREE DAMODAR KALVAIBHAV EDUCATION SOCIETY v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION GOA IBALAKRISHNAN, J.) 97
defeat Rule 31 and primary school can gradually ripen into higher secondary A
school stage by stage contravening the mandate contained in Rule 31. By the
proposed new class, the school is upgraded and then it amounts to starting of
a new school and is not a mere addition of one more class to the existing school.

t However, in the instant case, the first respondent, i.e., Director, Educa-
tion has not adverted to various other relevant circumstances while passing the B
impugned order. The counsel for the appellant had specifically contended that
the appellant school catered to the needs of the students from the lower middle
class families and out of the three neighbouring schools within a radius of 5
Kms., one is a Naval school which exclusively caters to the children of navy
personnel and the second school is a convent school and it is not normally C
possible to get admission to the students from the ordinary families. As regards
the third school also, it is stated that there are sufficient number of students in
the standard VIIIth of that school and there would not be any unhealthy
competition in case the appellant is allowed to open standard VIIIth in their
school. These aspects are not seen to have been considered by the Director of
Education while passing the impugned order. It is not known whether these D
relevant factors are taken into consideration while passing the order. Therefore,
on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to set aside the
impugned order and direct the first respondent to consider the matter afresh.

The appellant is directed to submit fresh application before the first
respondent. The application shall be submitted within three weeks from the E
date of this Order. The first respondent shall pass the revised order having due
regard to the relevant circumstances and, if necessary, shall give notice to the
representatives of the neighbouring schools which are likely to be prejudi-
cially affected by the order, if any, to be passed by the Director, Education.
Further, the Director has to consider whether the students who complete F
standard VIIth in this school can get admission in the other schools and
whether there would be adequate vacancies in the standard VIIIth in the other
schools, after accommodating their own promotees from standard VIIth. The ,,
order shall be passed sufficiently before the commencement of the new
academic year.
G
The appeal is disposed of. Parties to bear the costs.

v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.