Ameliorating INDIA And Ors vs. Pseb And Ors

Facts

The appellants, Ameliorating India & others, filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against a judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 23.07.2024 in CWP-9620-2024. The Single Judge had noted that the appellants were previously allowed to make a representation for affiliation, but no such representation was filed. During the arguments in the LPA, it emerged that an application had been filed, but the appellants objected to the application of amended regulations. These amendments increased the application fee from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1.5 lakhs plus GST, and the school area requirement from 3000 sq. feet to 5500 sq. feet. The appellants argued that since the earlier order was dated 28.09.2023, they should be governed by the old regulations.

Held

The Court held that the appellants' contention that they should be governed by the old regulations is not tenable. The Court reasoned that eligibility criteria must be assessed based on the regulations in force at the time of consideration. Once amended regulations come into force, they apply 'en-bloc to everybody'. Since the appellants had not fulfilled the norms under the amended regulations, their application was not being considered. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the reasoned order of the Learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellants, having filed an application for affiliation after an earlier order dated 28.09.2023, are entitled to be governed by the pre-amended regulations concerning the application fee and school area requirements, or by the amended regulations that came into force subsequently? Petitioner/Appellant's Contention: The appellants contended that as their application was filed pursuant to an order passed on 28.09.2023, they should be covered by the old regulations, implying that the increased application fee of Rs. 1.5 lakhs plus GST and the enhanced school area requirement of 5500 sq. feet should not apply to them. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents (Punjab School Education Board and others) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning suggests that the amended regulations, once in force, apply universally.