SHC suspends Sindh govt notification for 20pc cut in two-month school fees.

Byline: Ishaq Tanoli

KARACH -- The Sindh High Court on Tuesday suspended a new notification issued by the provincial education authorities to provide 20 per cent concession to parents in school fees for two months till May 14.

The two-judge bench headed by Justice Nadeem Akhtar also issued notices to the education authorities and the provincial law officer for next hearing.

The privately managed schools again approached the SHC against the concession in tuition fees after their first petition was disposed of last week for being infructuous since the provincial authorities had issued a new notification/special order, superseding the previous one challenged in the court, to provide concession in school fees of April and May after making amendments in the rules.

The petitioners challenged the special order issued by the director general of the directorate of inspection/registration of private institutions on April 28, notifying the 20pc mandatory concession in tuition fee again.

On April 29, the court had vacated an interim stay order against an earlier notification of 20pc concession

They also disputed the notification issued by the school education and literacy department on April 27, to add rules 19-A to 19-E in the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Rules 2005 empowering the directorate of inspection/registration of private institutions to issue a special order in extraordinary circumstances, including enhancement or reduction in fee and remuneration of teachers and other staff.

The lawyers for the petitioners contended that the rules were framed purportedly under Section 15 of the Sindh Private Educational Institution (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and the ordinance was supposedly amended by the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Act, 2003.

They further argued that an ordinance could not be amended by an act nor any rules could be framed under an ordinance and thus the rules of 2005 as well as the impugned amendment were of no legal affect.

The counsel for petitioners further submitted that if it was assumed that the ordinance in question was the parent statute, even then the impugned amendment and...