KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has come down hard on the directorate of inspection/registration of private institutions Sindh (DIRPS) for not taking any action against a private school to regulate its conduct in respect of charging excessive tuition fee.

A single-judge bench of the SHC, headed by Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman, observed that if the directorate of private institutions was unable to perform its duty, it may come forward and admit the same so amendment may be made in the relevant law.

It further said that the lackadaisical attitude of the DIRPS in the present matter was deplorable.

The bench ordered the director general as well as the owner and other officials of the private school to be in attendance on Sept 22.

It further ruled that the school could only charge a five per cent increase in tuition/school fee per annum or as set out by the directorate of private institutions.

The bench issued such directive while hearing of a lawsuit filed by the parents of over 10 students and inter alia, impugned challans of excessive school fee.

The counsel for plaintiffs argued that a new branch of Lahore Grammar School was inaugurated in August 2022 and in order to appeal prospective students it announced a very attractive admission policy offering 50 per cent concession in siblings’ fees for lifetime and assurance of providing world-class facilities for students.

The counsel contended that in the initial few months, the school was running smoothly, but thereafter, it replaced staff members including teachers with inexperienced and new recruits and failed to maintain the standard it promised and also shifted the classrooms to the playground area.

Citing the chief secretary, education secretary and the principal of the school as defendants, the plaintiffs submitted that in April, the school had sent a fees voucher for the month of May which showed the concession previously granted to the plaintiffs was taken off in complete violation of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation & Control) Rule 2005 as once the fee schedule had been approved, it could not be increased during the academic year.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs submitted that as per Section 7(3) of rule 2005, the monthly tuition fee could not be increased by more than five per cent annually and only after obtaining approval from the government, but the school in question had failed to follow such provision by significantly increasing the monthly tuition fee without obtaining the necessary approval.

The counsel also informed the bench that earlier, the plaintiffs had also filed a lawsuit in the SHC in which interim orders were passed restraining the school from preventing the children of plaintiffs from attending school.

He further argued that now the school management was resorting to tactics to coerce plaintiffs to withdraw their children from the school.

The bench in its order said that the plaintiffs in the suit had not made the DIRPS a defendant as being the regulatory authority it was a necessary party. It directed the counsel to implead the directorate as defendant No.4 and file an amended title in one week.

“The obligations as between the parents and the defendant No.3 [school] are regulated by the defendant No.4 and it is alarming to note that despite protest and letters no action is being taken by the defendant No.4 to regulate the conduct of defendant No.3 in this regard. If defendant No.4 is unable to regulate the conduct, it should come forward and say no and amend the law because if the law is in field, it is the duty of defendant No.2 [school education department] to comply with it”, it added.

While putting the defendants on notices for Sept 22, the bench directed the principal, chief executive officer and owners of school and DIRPS DG to appear in court on the next hearing.

“In the interim, the defendant No.3 is restrained from charging Rs30,000 fee per month from the plaintiffs as school fee and will only charge a 5% increase of the previous fee that was paid by the plaintiffs and which fee can until the decision of this application be increased subject to the 5% increase permitted per annum or as set by the defendant No.4,” it concluded.

Published in Dawn, September 17th, 2023