Summary
The Supreme Court upheld invalidation of transferring a derecognized residential primary school about 400 km away under another management. Recognition could not be treated as a transferable business licence. To protect enrolled children and staff, it permitted temporary continuation, ordered a transparent fresh-proposal process and protected service and specified wages.
Issues
- Whether the distant transfer of a closed Ashram school was valid under the policy framework.
- How students’ education and employees’ service and pay should be protected.
Held
- The transfer disregarded the policy’s normal 10 km setting and effectively permitted a different entity to create a new school elsewhere. The High Court rightly rejected treating the old recognition as a portable business licence. (¶ 9–12)
- To avoid prejudice to enrolled children, the existing school could continue through academic session 2019–2020 but could not function from 2020–2021 under the impugned resolution. (¶ 13(a))
- Authorities must invite adequately publicized proposals following Jeevanjyoti, preferring a location conforming to the 2007 resolution. A more distant location required failure or non-viability of such proposals and recorded exceptional reasons. (¶ 13(b))
- Affected employees were to be treated in continuous service from 2 January 2012 through judgment, remain with the temporary school through 2019–2020 and be absorbed elsewhere or in the restarted/new school on closure. (¶ 13(c)–(d))
- Employees were entitled to salary for service actually rendered and 25% back wages for periods not worked. The State had to release arrears within six weeks. (¶ 13(e)–(f))
Result
Appeals dismissed with transitional school-continuation, fresh-proposal, employee-absorption and wage-payment directions. No order as to costs.