MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has stayed the proposed closure of 757 aided and unaided schools across western Maharashtra, observing that the state government acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by taking action without first granting the institutions an opportunity to be heard.HC stays closure of 757 schools, says state violated natural justiceA division bench of justices Madhav J Jamdar and Pravin S Patil restrained the state government from taking any action against 433 primary schools and 324 secondary schools that were facing closure under two Government Resolutions (GRs) issued by the School Education Department on April 1 and April 2 this year.The court held that the government’s decision to shut down the schools without conducting individual hearings was legally unsustainable. “The action of closing down the schools without granting them opportunity of hearing was in violation of principles of natural justice,” the bench observed while directing that the petitioner schools be removed from the purview of the two GRs.The court further ordered the School Education Department to delete the names of the affected institutions from the lists annexed to the April 1 and April 2 resolutions and restrained authorities from initiating any coercive action against them.Under the April 1 GR, the government had permanently disqualified 433 primary schools and 33 additional divisions from receiving grant-in-aid, citing their alleged poor performance in assessments. A day later, the April 2 GR similarly disqualified 324 secondary schools and 412 additional divisions from grant eligibility on the same grounds.The resolutions also directed the institutions to seek recognition under the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 by April 30. Failure to do so would have resulted in withdrawal of recognition, effectively leading to closure of the schools.Challenging the resolutions, the schools approached the high court, arguing that many of them had been functioning for years and were educating thousands of students. They contended that several institutions had already applied for grant-in-aid and some had even been found eligible for 20 per cent salary and non-salary grants. Despite this, the government proceeded against them without issuing notices or offering a chance to present their case.Accepting the schools’ arguments, the high court said it was “absolutely necessary” for the government to conduct an individual hearing for each institution before taking such a drastic decision.The bench also noted that all the schools listed in the GRs had obtained the requisite permissions from the state government and recognition from education authorities under the Secondary School Code. While the Code prescribes a specific procedure for cancelling a school’s recognition, the authorities had failed to follow it.The judges underscored that an executive order such as a Government Resolution cannot override statutory provisions. Consequently, any action taken without adhering to the procedure laid down in the Secondary School Code was legally untenable, the court said.The bench also found fault with the government’s attempt to compel schools to shift to a self-financed model. Referring to the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012, the court held that opting for self-financed status is entirely the prerogative of the school management and cannot be forced upon institutions by the state.“On this count also we found that the directions given by the State Government to the schools, to move appropriate applications under the provisions of the Self Finance Act, 2012 to run the school are not justified,” the bench observed.The court further questioned the practical implications of the government’s decision, noting that although the GRs proposed shifting students from the 757 affected schools to other institutions, there was no assessment of whether sufficient schools existed to accommodate such a large number of students.“The Government ought to have considered the fact that due to this drastic action, students at large and also the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the schools would be adversely affected. However, there is no consideration to these material aspects in the matter,” the judges remarked.The bench also pointed out that teaching and non-teaching employees of the affected schools would face severe hardship if the institutions were shut down. Since they belong to unaided schools, they cannot be declared surplus and absorbed into other schools, potentially leaving hundreds of employees without jobs.