HC sends teacher-student ratio in TN query to larger bench

The Madras High Court has set aside the orders of the Private School Fee Determination Committee, asking it to re-consider the matter and referred to a larger bench a question involving teacher-student ratio in private unaided schools.
Disposing of petitions from schools, including Vivekananda Matriculation, which challenged the committee's fee structure fixation, the division bench said private institutions are at liberty to fix their fee structure covering operation cost and provision for their future needs.
Justices C T Selvam and M V Muralidaran said as long as the fees structure formulated by a school does not amount to profiteering, the committee should not interfere.

"We are of the view that it would be appropriate to set aside the orders under challenge and remand the matters for fresh consideration of the committee," the bench said.
It referred to the earlier division Bench order in the Lakshmi Matriculation School vs State of Tamil Nadu and others in the year 2012 in its order.
The Bench said it trusted that the committee would take into consideration its observations that flowed from the decision of the High Court in the Lakshmi School case.

In the Lakshmi Matriculation School vs State of Tamil Nadu (2012) case, the validity of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009, was upheld.

It also had broad parameters to be followed by the Fee Determination Committee.
Not agreeing with the earlier Division Bench decision which toed the teacher-student ratio prescribed in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, the court directed the Registry to refer the teacherstudent ratio question to a three-member bench.
"The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, informs the minimum number of teachers necessary for a particular strength of students," the Bench said.
However, the Act does not inform the maximum number of teachers permissible.
Stating that in the Lakshmi School case, a High Court bench found the teacher-student ratio prescribed in the Act appropriate, the judges said "we are unable to agree".

Hence, it referred the matter to a three-judge bench on the question of teacher-student ratio.
The question was whether an unaided private educational institution was bound to adopt the teacher-student ratio norm prescribed under the Right to Education Act.
Also, part of the question was whether following such a ratio norm would be covered under the 'reasonable restriction' clause and not offend Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees right to carry on any profession.
The bench then directed to place this matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.