The Chairperson,
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
5th Floor, Chanderlok Building
36, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
Sub:- Denial of admission by Government and MCD Schools to the children including children with disabilities
Dear Madam,
Today the Country is celebrating “International Disability Day”. There is a need to highlight the fact that there are more than 2 crore children with disabilities in the country and less than 1% of them are attending school. Those, who are attending schools are also facing problems like absence of special teachers, aids and appliances and study material. It is needless to say that more than 10 crore children including children with disabilities are out of school in violation of their right to education as guaranteed under the constitution of India read with the Provision of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
It is brought to your notice that Right to Education Task Force Volunteers have recently registered the names of as many as 533 children including 193 children with disabilities who has been denied admission by Government and MCD schools in Delhi. A list of the said children is enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
It is, therefore, requested that necessary action may be taken in this matter to ensure that Government and MCD schools immediately grant admission to all these and other children seeking admission in the schools.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal,
Advisor Social Jurist
Friday, December 4, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
CONTEMPT NOTICE TO MCD COMMISSIONER-ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF SCHOOL PREMISES
To
The CommissionerMunicipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni ChowkDelhi-110006
Sub: Contempt Notice - School premises illegally occupied by municipal dispensary in violation of Delhi High Court directives.
Dear Sir,
It is brought to your notice that the premises of the MCD Primary School, Block 16,Trilokpuri, Delhi has been partly occupied by the Health Department for the last several years causing inconvenience to the tender age students studying in that school. Due to this illegal and unauthorised occupation, students of the school have been deprived of educational facilities conducive to their quality education. Moreover, the incident of 23.10.2009, in which a 53 years old primary teacher, Bhitty Bhan, was stabbed in classroom by a person visiting the dispensary in the school premises. This has been widely reported in the newspapers on 24.10.2009. I have been told that despite protests by the parents, you have taken no action to remove the dispensary from the school premises and to handover the premises to the Principal of the school for utilising the same as classrooms for the students. Had you taken action to remove the dispensary from the school premises, the said incident could have been avoided.
In July 2002, Social Jurist filed a PIL (Civil Writ No. 4032/2002) in Delhi High Court highlighting that the municipal dispensary was being run in the premises of the MCD Boys School, Bowana by occupying two classrooms, one multi purpose room and a toilet block thereby depriving more than 750 school children of class 1 to 5 (both boys and girls) not only of the benefit of classrooms, multi-purpose room and toilet block but also of the playground. It was also highlighted that the municipal dispensary was run during the school hours resulting in entry of large number of patients, their relatives etc. in the school premises which roam in and around the playground and classrooms of the children causing disturbance to the studies of the children. It was submitted that dispensary employees throw open the medical waste including used syringes in the playground and the same were picked up by the school children endangering their lives. It was submitted that the said action on the part of the MCD was not only in violation of the rights of the children as guaranteed to them under Articles 21 and 45 of the Constitution of India read with Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Delhi Primary Education Act, 1960 and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but also in violation of the Orders dated 16.02.2001 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed in PIL (CW. 5329 of 1997) wherein the Hon'ble Judges observed "We can not permit the MCD to open its offices in schools and deprive the children of their classrooms."
When the above said PIL (CW No. 4032/2002) came up for hearing before the High Court on 02.08.2002, the High Court directed you to remove the dispensary from the school premises on or before 31st January 2003 and hand over the possession of the class rooms etc. to the school after the same were vacated by MCD. Pursuant to the said Orders, the MCD removed the dispensary and handed over the classroom etc. to the school.
It is shocking that despite Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s clear directives to the MCD to not to open its offices in schools’ premises and to deprive the students of their classrooms, MCD has allowed its dispensary to continue in the premises of the MCD Primary School, Block 16, Trilokpuri, Delhi. The said action on your part goes contrary to the spirit of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and tantamount to contempt of the High Court which attracts penal action against you.
It is, therefore, demanded that the municipal dispensary should be removed immediately from the premises of the MCD Primary School, Sector 16, Trilokpuri, Delhi the same be handed over to the Principal of the school for the purpose of the school and nothing else. If it is not done, we will approach the High Court with contempt petition against you. Please note.
Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-09811101923
25.10.2009
The CommissionerMunicipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni ChowkDelhi-110006
Sub: Contempt Notice - School premises illegally occupied by municipal dispensary in violation of Delhi High Court directives.
Dear Sir,
It is brought to your notice that the premises of the MCD Primary School, Block 16,Trilokpuri, Delhi has been partly occupied by the Health Department for the last several years causing inconvenience to the tender age students studying in that school. Due to this illegal and unauthorised occupation, students of the school have been deprived of educational facilities conducive to their quality education. Moreover, the incident of 23.10.2009, in which a 53 years old primary teacher, Bhitty Bhan, was stabbed in classroom by a person visiting the dispensary in the school premises. This has been widely reported in the newspapers on 24.10.2009. I have been told that despite protests by the parents, you have taken no action to remove the dispensary from the school premises and to handover the premises to the Principal of the school for utilising the same as classrooms for the students. Had you taken action to remove the dispensary from the school premises, the said incident could have been avoided.
In July 2002, Social Jurist filed a PIL (Civil Writ No. 4032/2002) in Delhi High Court highlighting that the municipal dispensary was being run in the premises of the MCD Boys School, Bowana by occupying two classrooms, one multi purpose room and a toilet block thereby depriving more than 750 school children of class 1 to 5 (both boys and girls) not only of the benefit of classrooms, multi-purpose room and toilet block but also of the playground. It was also highlighted that the municipal dispensary was run during the school hours resulting in entry of large number of patients, their relatives etc. in the school premises which roam in and around the playground and classrooms of the children causing disturbance to the studies of the children. It was submitted that dispensary employees throw open the medical waste including used syringes in the playground and the same were picked up by the school children endangering their lives. It was submitted that the said action on the part of the MCD was not only in violation of the rights of the children as guaranteed to them under Articles 21 and 45 of the Constitution of India read with Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Delhi Primary Education Act, 1960 and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but also in violation of the Orders dated 16.02.2001 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed in PIL (CW. 5329 of 1997) wherein the Hon'ble Judges observed "We can not permit the MCD to open its offices in schools and deprive the children of their classrooms."
When the above said PIL (CW No. 4032/2002) came up for hearing before the High Court on 02.08.2002, the High Court directed you to remove the dispensary from the school premises on or before 31st January 2003 and hand over the possession of the class rooms etc. to the school after the same were vacated by MCD. Pursuant to the said Orders, the MCD removed the dispensary and handed over the classroom etc. to the school.
It is shocking that despite Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s clear directives to the MCD to not to open its offices in schools’ premises and to deprive the students of their classrooms, MCD has allowed its dispensary to continue in the premises of the MCD Primary School, Block 16, Trilokpuri, Delhi. The said action on your part goes contrary to the spirit of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and tantamount to contempt of the High Court which attracts penal action against you.
It is, therefore, demanded that the municipal dispensary should be removed immediately from the premises of the MCD Primary School, Sector 16, Trilokpuri, Delhi the same be handed over to the Principal of the school for the purpose of the school and nothing else. If it is not done, we will approach the High Court with contempt petition against you. Please note.
Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-09811101923
25.10.2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
DELHI GOVT SPL SCHOOL DENIES ADMISSION TO 8 YRS OLD SPL CHILD
Dear Madam Chief Minister of Delhi,
It is most unfortunate and painful that a school meant for children suffering from hearing impairment has denied admission to a hearing impaired child in Class I without any valid reason. The Rajkiya Madhyamik Badhir Vidyalaya (Delhi Government Secondary School for Hearing Impaired Children run by the Department of Social Welfare at Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi-85 has refused to grant admission to 8-year-old Master Vicky even after repeated requests of the child’s mother. It is submitted that Master Vicky s/o Mrs. Kiran Singh r/o N-123/5, T-HUTS, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi is suffering from hearing disability. As per the Hearing Disability Certificate dated 01.08.2007 issued by Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped, the child suffers from Profound Sensorineural Loss with pure tone average of 95 % dB in the better ear. It is submitted that from the past one month Mrs. Kiran, the mother of the child, has been asking the authorities of Rajkiya Madhyamik Badhir Vidyalaya to give admission to her ward in Class 1 in the said school owing to Master Vicky’s hearing disability, but the school authorities have been refusing to take him in their school. Even after repeated requests the school has not paid any heed to the child’s right to education. It is interesting to note that the said school is a special school, run by the Delhi Government for the children with hearing impairment.
One can imagine that if a special child has not been admitted in a special school run by the Government, then what will happen to the children with disabilities seeking admission in mainstream schools run by the educational departments of Delhi Government and the MCD. It is needless to say that as per the existing law and government policies, every child with disabilities is entitled to, as a matter of right, admission in the mainstream schools. Mrs. Kiran Singh thereafter approached Mr. Ashok Agarwal, who had a telephonic conversation with a teacher of the said school namely Mr. Bhupinder (as at that time the Principal was not available) and was assured that the child will be given admission. However, the child has still not been admitted by the school. Mrs Singh has lodged a written complaint with the undersigned, the copy of which is attached with this letter.
It is also submitted that Mrs Kiran was employed as an unskilled worker in a factory earning average wages of Rs. 2000/- per month. It is unfortunate that she has even lost her job because of the fact that for the last one month she has been toiling hard to get her child admitted to the said school. It is submitted that such arbitrary attitude of the school by denying admission to a disabled child is not only unconstitutional but also contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) read with the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), and Article 21-A (right to education) of the Constitution of India as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the National Charter for Children, 2003. We request you to kindly take the necessary action in this regard as soon as possible and make sure that Master Vicky gets admission in the said school in Class I. The arbitrary act of the school should be taken seriously and the erring officials should be taken to task.
With regards
Ashok Agarwal, AdvocateAdvisor-
Social JuristM: 9811101923
It is most unfortunate and painful that a school meant for children suffering from hearing impairment has denied admission to a hearing impaired child in Class I without any valid reason. The Rajkiya Madhyamik Badhir Vidyalaya (Delhi Government Secondary School for Hearing Impaired Children run by the Department of Social Welfare at Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi-85 has refused to grant admission to 8-year-old Master Vicky even after repeated requests of the child’s mother. It is submitted that Master Vicky s/o Mrs. Kiran Singh r/o N-123/5, T-HUTS, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi is suffering from hearing disability. As per the Hearing Disability Certificate dated 01.08.2007 issued by Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped, the child suffers from Profound Sensorineural Loss with pure tone average of 95 % dB in the better ear. It is submitted that from the past one month Mrs. Kiran, the mother of the child, has been asking the authorities of Rajkiya Madhyamik Badhir Vidyalaya to give admission to her ward in Class 1 in the said school owing to Master Vicky’s hearing disability, but the school authorities have been refusing to take him in their school. Even after repeated requests the school has not paid any heed to the child’s right to education. It is interesting to note that the said school is a special school, run by the Delhi Government for the children with hearing impairment.
One can imagine that if a special child has not been admitted in a special school run by the Government, then what will happen to the children with disabilities seeking admission in mainstream schools run by the educational departments of Delhi Government and the MCD. It is needless to say that as per the existing law and government policies, every child with disabilities is entitled to, as a matter of right, admission in the mainstream schools. Mrs. Kiran Singh thereafter approached Mr. Ashok Agarwal, who had a telephonic conversation with a teacher of the said school namely Mr. Bhupinder (as at that time the Principal was not available) and was assured that the child will be given admission. However, the child has still not been admitted by the school. Mrs Singh has lodged a written complaint with the undersigned, the copy of which is attached with this letter.
It is also submitted that Mrs Kiran was employed as an unskilled worker in a factory earning average wages of Rs. 2000/- per month. It is unfortunate that she has even lost her job because of the fact that for the last one month she has been toiling hard to get her child admitted to the said school. It is submitted that such arbitrary attitude of the school by denying admission to a disabled child is not only unconstitutional but also contrary to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) read with the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), and Article 21-A (right to education) of the Constitution of India as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the National Charter for Children, 2003. We request you to kindly take the necessary action in this regard as soon as possible and make sure that Master Vicky gets admission in the said school in Class I. The arbitrary act of the school should be taken seriously and the erring officials should be taken to task.
With regards
Ashok Agarwal, AdvocateAdvisor-
Social JuristM: 9811101923
DELHI GOVT SCHOOL-238 CLASS XI STUDENTS WITHOUT SINGLE PGT
To
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Dear Sir,
We would like to draw your attention towards the problems being faced by the students of Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave, which have an adverse effect on the students’ right to a good holistic and studious environment in the school. We have been apprised by our volunteer at the Right to Education Task Force (RETF), under the aegis of Social Jurist- A Civil Rights Group, that there is an environment of utter confusion and chaos in the Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave because of the absence of required teachers at the school. It has further been apprised to us that though the school has 2007 students in all there are on 26 TGT teachers at the school. Out of the 2007 students 1769 students belong to classes VI to X while the rest 238 students are studying in class XI.
The distribution of students and the number of teachers is given in the table below for your perusal:
ClassNo. of StudentsNo. of Teachers that the school should provideNo. of Teachers presently available at the schoolNo. of teachers that the school lacks
Class VI to X176940 TGT2618 TGT
Class XI2387 PGT07 PGT
The above statistics amply indicate the scarcity of teachers at the said school which needs to be filled with immediate effects so that the students do not suffer academically. It is appalling to note that there are NO teachers for Class XI students because of which the students roam about in the school premises all day and are not being taught anything. It has further been informed to us that the Directorate of Education has already been notified of the said problem but no action has been taken till now. The situation has become even graver now that the quarterly examinations of the students have begun from 08.09.09. Such a laxity on the part of the management is tantamount to playing with the future of so many students, especially students studying in class XI at Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave.
It is interesting to note that it was only in the academic year 2009-2010 that the school started admitting students for Class XI. Thereafter 238 students were admitted for Class XI in the school. However, not even a single PGT teacher has been appointed in the school to teach these 238 students of Class XI. The few teachers that teach Class XI students are only M.A pass and are thus not qualified to teach class XI students. There is an urgent requirement of 7 PGT teachers in the school for class XI. The request letters of these students are being attached with this letter for your kind perusal. We request you to kindly look into the matter and make sure that these children do no miss on their studies and are admitted to schools with immediate effect.
I would also like to draw your attention to another problem being faced by the students of the said school. It has been observed that there is a severe problem of garbage disposal in the school. There is no provision in the school for daily garbage removal from the school because of which garbage remains dumped in the school premises for nearly 2-3 days which amounts to bad odor and smell in the school premises.
It is thereby requested that you kindly look into the matter and take necessary action in the above mentioned problems being faced by the students of Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor- Social Jurist
14.09.2009
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Dear Sir,
We would like to draw your attention towards the problems being faced by the students of Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave, which have an adverse effect on the students’ right to a good holistic and studious environment in the school. We have been apprised by our volunteer at the Right to Education Task Force (RETF), under the aegis of Social Jurist- A Civil Rights Group, that there is an environment of utter confusion and chaos in the Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave because of the absence of required teachers at the school. It has further been apprised to us that though the school has 2007 students in all there are on 26 TGT teachers at the school. Out of the 2007 students 1769 students belong to classes VI to X while the rest 238 students are studying in class XI.
The distribution of students and the number of teachers is given in the table below for your perusal:
ClassNo. of StudentsNo. of Teachers that the school should provideNo. of Teachers presently available at the schoolNo. of teachers that the school lacks
Class VI to X176940 TGT2618 TGT
Class XI2387 PGT07 PGT
The above statistics amply indicate the scarcity of teachers at the said school which needs to be filled with immediate effects so that the students do not suffer academically. It is appalling to note that there are NO teachers for Class XI students because of which the students roam about in the school premises all day and are not being taught anything. It has further been informed to us that the Directorate of Education has already been notified of the said problem but no action has been taken till now. The situation has become even graver now that the quarterly examinations of the students have begun from 08.09.09. Such a laxity on the part of the management is tantamount to playing with the future of so many students, especially students studying in class XI at Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave.
It is interesting to note that it was only in the academic year 2009-2010 that the school started admitting students for Class XI. Thereafter 238 students were admitted for Class XI in the school. However, not even a single PGT teacher has been appointed in the school to teach these 238 students of Class XI. The few teachers that teach Class XI students are only M.A pass and are thus not qualified to teach class XI students. There is an urgent requirement of 7 PGT teachers in the school for class XI. The request letters of these students are being attached with this letter for your kind perusal. We request you to kindly look into the matter and make sure that these children do no miss on their studies and are admitted to schools with immediate effect.
I would also like to draw your attention to another problem being faced by the students of the said school. It has been observed that there is a severe problem of garbage disposal in the school. There is no provision in the school for daily garbage removal from the school because of which garbage remains dumped in the school premises for nearly 2-3 days which amounts to bad odor and smell in the school premises.
It is thereby requested that you kindly look into the matter and take necessary action in the above mentioned problems being faced by the students of Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Vasundhara Enclave.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor- Social Jurist
14.09.2009
STOP HUMILIATING EWS STUDENT-SJ TELLS SCHOOL
25.09.2009
To
Dr. Avtar Singh
Principal
Guru Harkishan Public School
Nanak Piao, Delhi
Dear Sir,
It has been brought to our notice that by the demand letter dated 25.09.2009 your school has informed the parents (M.9871241924) of Suchit Kumar, class V-C student of your school that the fees for the month of April to September 2009 in respect of Suchit Kumar has not been received till 24.09.09 and they are required to deposit fee immediately otherwise the name of Suchit would be struck off due to non payment of fees.
It is submitted that Suchit Kumar was admitted in your school in nursery class in 2004-05 under EWS quota and since then he has been study in your school and at present he is a student of class V-C. At the time of initially admission, the parents of Suchit Kumar had submitted their income certificate issued by the local SDM and on the strength that the admission was granted to Suchit Kumar under EWS category.
That since Master Suchit Kumar has been admitted in your school under EWS category, he is legally entitled to continue to have the benefit of EWS category till his completion of class 12 studies. Therefore, the aforesaid demand on your part for payment of fees in neither justified nor legal.
We are told that during the last week, at least on 3 days, the class teacher in the presence of entire class asked Suchit Kumar to tell his parents to pay the fees which has caused unwanted humiliation to the child. You will appreciate that the child must not be target in any circumstances. Such practice of humiliating the child must be stopped.
It is requested that you may kindly withdraw your demand letter dated 25.09.09 and allow Suchit Kumar to have the benefit of EWS quota.
With regards
Ashok Agarwal
Advocate
Advisor- Social Jurist
M. 9811101923
To
Dr. Avtar Singh
Principal
Guru Harkishan Public School
Nanak Piao, Delhi
Dear Sir,
It has been brought to our notice that by the demand letter dated 25.09.2009 your school has informed the parents (M.9871241924) of Suchit Kumar, class V-C student of your school that the fees for the month of April to September 2009 in respect of Suchit Kumar has not been received till 24.09.09 and they are required to deposit fee immediately otherwise the name of Suchit would be struck off due to non payment of fees.
It is submitted that Suchit Kumar was admitted in your school in nursery class in 2004-05 under EWS quota and since then he has been study in your school and at present he is a student of class V-C. At the time of initially admission, the parents of Suchit Kumar had submitted their income certificate issued by the local SDM and on the strength that the admission was granted to Suchit Kumar under EWS category.
That since Master Suchit Kumar has been admitted in your school under EWS category, he is legally entitled to continue to have the benefit of EWS category till his completion of class 12 studies. Therefore, the aforesaid demand on your part for payment of fees in neither justified nor legal.
We are told that during the last week, at least on 3 days, the class teacher in the presence of entire class asked Suchit Kumar to tell his parents to pay the fees which has caused unwanted humiliation to the child. You will appreciate that the child must not be target in any circumstances. Such practice of humiliating the child must be stopped.
It is requested that you may kindly withdraw your demand letter dated 25.09.09 and allow Suchit Kumar to have the benefit of EWS quota.
With regards
Ashok Agarwal
Advocate
Advisor- Social Jurist
M. 9811101923
Sunday, March 22, 2009
SCHOOL LAW HELPLINE
Right to Education Task Force (RETF) is a group of volunteers intervening into the matter of complaints of parents, students and social activists etc. relating to the problems involving violation of child rights being faced by the students/parents with private as well as with government schools primarily in Delhi, and also in other states/union territories of India. The complaints are handled by the legal experts. All services are totally voluntary & free of cost. One can write to RETF at Email: socialjurist@socialjurist.com and/or to The Convener, Right to Education Task Force, 478-479, Lawyers Chambers, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 (India). Complaints can also be lodged at HELPLINES- 09811101923, 011-23384000, 09868529459.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Convener, RETF
M-09811101923
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Convener, RETF
M-09811101923
Saturday, March 14, 2009
YEH KAISI AASTHA? (WHAT KIND OF FAITH IT IS?)
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at about 12.30 pm in front of a Hindu Temple near Deepali Chowk, Outer Ring Road, North-West Delhi, India several tender age children can be seen rolling themselves on the summer hot road under the dictates of their parents covering distance of around 200 meters in order to reach at the gate of the temple to offer prayers to the Hindu deity. These tender age children are the children of the people of the poor and marginalized sections. The parents are literally forcing them to adopt such inhuman and derogatory practice in the hope & belief of being awarded with material prosperity so to compete with the rest of the world. Interestingly, hundreds of passing by rich and wealthy sections of people are just not interested in the world of these poor and unfortunate children.
Mob- 09811101923
Saturday, March 7, 2009
EWS STUDENTS ADMISSION IN UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS - HIGH COURT ORDER OF 18.02.2009
DELHI HIGH COURT, AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No. 3156 OF 2002
Social Jurist vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others
Order dated 18.02.2009 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench in the PIL relating to the free seats to the students belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 384 unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom public land was allotted on concessional rates
“We are informed that the admission process for the academic session 2009-2010 is in process and is likely to be completed by April and an assurance has been given on behalf of the respective schools that the interim order of this court for reservation admitting to 15% of EWS students could be maintained and complied with in letter and spirit.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that there are complaints that some of the schools are not issuing forms to the parents of the eligible EWS students. It will be open for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal to approach the Director of Education with regard to such cases and in the case such representation is received, the department will take appropriate action in accordance with the Law.
All the concerned schools are directed to submit their statement to the Director of Education by the first week of May, 2009 indicating the number of students admitted under the EWS category. The Director of Education shall ascertain the veracity of this report and file a status report in this court by the end of May, 2009.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat also informs us that fee have been refunded to students in terms of the order dated 30th May, 2007. Let the matter stand over till 8th July, 2009.
The State Government is directed to give adequate publicity to the reservation for EWS category on its Website, Newspapers, Doordarshan and other channels as well as in Cinema halls by way of slides.”
W.P. (C) No. 3156 OF 2002
Social Jurist vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others
Order dated 18.02.2009 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench in the PIL relating to the free seats to the students belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 384 unaided recognized private schools in Delhi to whom public land was allotted on concessional rates
“We are informed that the admission process for the academic session 2009-2010 is in process and is likely to be completed by April and an assurance has been given on behalf of the respective schools that the interim order of this court for reservation admitting to 15% of EWS students could be maintained and complied with in letter and spirit.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that there are complaints that some of the schools are not issuing forms to the parents of the eligible EWS students. It will be open for Mr. Ashok Aggarwal to approach the Director of Education with regard to such cases and in the case such representation is received, the department will take appropriate action in accordance with the Law.
All the concerned schools are directed to submit their statement to the Director of Education by the first week of May, 2009 indicating the number of students admitted under the EWS category. The Director of Education shall ascertain the veracity of this report and file a status report in this court by the end of May, 2009.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat also informs us that fee have been refunded to students in terms of the order dated 30th May, 2007. Let the matter stand over till 8th July, 2009.
The State Government is directed to give adequate publicity to the reservation for EWS category on its Website, Newspapers, Doordarshan and other channels as well as in Cinema halls by way of slides.”
PARENTS UNABLE TO PAY FEE OF RS. 6500 - GREEDY SCHOOL DECLINES BROTHER-SISTER TO TAKE ANNUAL EXAMINATION
07.03.2009
To,
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Sub: Parents unable to pay RS. 6500 – Greedy school declines brother-sister to take annual examination
Dear Sir,
That Mr. B.S Kapoor and Mrs. Meenu Kapoor (M: 9313506686) r/o C-32, Hardev Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 84, parents of master Abhishek Kapoor and Kumari Heena Kapoor, students of classes VI & IV of Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 (M : 9212205870), have personally complained to me that since they were unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6500 ( arrears on account of fee hike + books charges) to the school, the schools’ Principal kept both of their wards out from taking annual examinations which started on the 5th of March 2009. Inspite of the fact that the parents promised to pay the said sum of Rs. 6500 to the school, before they were provided with annual report cards, the greedy school Principal did not listen to them at all. These students have already missed three exams and if this state of affairs continues anymore, they would also miss the remaining exams which would end on 17.03.2009.
The parents’ economic condition is very bad and the total family monthly income is not more than Rs. 5000. The said conduct of the school leaves no doubt that the said school has been indulging in commercialization of education. The basic legal philosophy of philanthropy and community service behind running the school has been completely violated. Unfortunately, the Government of Delhi is a silent spectator and has miserably failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of free and good quality education in the schools. In the absence of good quality Government schools, the hapless parents are forced to send their wards to fee charging private schools and to part with a substantial portion of their income.
It is the pious duty of the Government to ensure that no child is victimized, harassed, tortured and deprived of its Right to Education.
It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may be taken in this matter with an intimation to the undersigned.
With regards
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile - 9811101923
Copy to: Principal, Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084, for information and necessary action please.
To,
The Director of Education
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Sub: Parents unable to pay RS. 6500 – Greedy school declines brother-sister to take annual examination
Dear Sir,
That Mr. B.S Kapoor and Mrs. Meenu Kapoor (M: 9313506686) r/o C-32, Hardev Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 84, parents of master Abhishek Kapoor and Kumari Heena Kapoor, students of classes VI & IV of Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 (M : 9212205870), have personally complained to me that since they were unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6500 ( arrears on account of fee hike + books charges) to the school, the schools’ Principal kept both of their wards out from taking annual examinations which started on the 5th of March 2009. Inspite of the fact that the parents promised to pay the said sum of Rs. 6500 to the school, before they were provided with annual report cards, the greedy school Principal did not listen to them at all. These students have already missed three exams and if this state of affairs continues anymore, they would also miss the remaining exams which would end on 17.03.2009.
The parents’ economic condition is very bad and the total family monthly income is not more than Rs. 5000. The said conduct of the school leaves no doubt that the said school has been indulging in commercialization of education. The basic legal philosophy of philanthropy and community service behind running the school has been completely violated. Unfortunately, the Government of Delhi is a silent spectator and has miserably failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of free and good quality education in the schools. In the absence of good quality Government schools, the hapless parents are forced to send their wards to fee charging private schools and to part with a substantial portion of their income.
It is the pious duty of the Government to ensure that no child is victimized, harassed, tortured and deprived of its Right to Education.
It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may be taken in this matter with an intimation to the undersigned.
With regards
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile - 9811101923
Copy to: Principal, Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084, for information and necessary action please.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION BILL, 2008 FAILS THE TEST OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as RTE Bill, 2008) introduced by the Central Government in the Rajya Sabha on 15 December 2008 though appears to be a progressive legislation but on examination thereof, it is not difficult to conclude that the same does not stand the test of constitutional mandate guaranteed under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India.
Undoubtedly, some of the provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are laudable. Section 3 talks of right to free and compulsory education and admission in a neighbourhood school. Section 4 talks of admission of child in class appropriate to his or her age. Sections 8 & 9 talk of obligations of the government to provide compulsory education to children. Section 12 talks of obligation of the unaided recognised private schools to provide free seats to the extent of 25% to the children of the economically weaker sections. Section 13 (1) talks of “no capitation fee” and “no screening procedure” for admission. Section 14 talks of admission without insisting upon production of age proof. Section 16 talks of “no expulsion of a child”. Section 17 bans corporal punishment. Section 23 talks of formation of school management committees. Section 23 ensures recruitment of only qualified teachers. Section 25 talks of ensuring Pupil-Teacher Ratio as specified in the schedule. Section 32 talks of grievance redressal mechanism.
On the other hand, several provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are meant to legalise and to perpetuate the existing unjust and discriminatory school education system based on socio-economic status. Section 3 (b) defines “capitation fee” means any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school. The import of this provision is that a school is free to notify any amount of fee whether needed or not and once it is notified, it will be legal. The Bill does not provide any fee regulatory mechanism to check the menace of commercialisation of education. Moreover, the right of every child to receive free and compulsory education as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution does not depend on the capacity of the parents to afford fee or not. Therefore, every child whether studying in private or State-run school, is entitled to free education. The State should bear the entire expenses even of the children studying in private-run schools. On the other hand, Section 8 disentitles a child studying in such private school even to claim from the State the reimbursement of expenditure incurred.
Section 2 (n) instead of permitting only same category of schools for all the children, sanctifies different categories of schools for the children of different socio-economic status. Most objectionable is; “a school belonging to specified category”. Section 2 (p) defines “specified category” in relation to a school, means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik School or any other school having a distinct character which may be specified by notification, by the appropriate Government. How can you have such a specified category of school with ‘State Funding’ which does not provide equal opportunity to all the children in the matter of admission? That providing only 25% of seats to the children of weaker sections in such ‘specified category of school’ is a cruel joke.
Section 7 talks of sharing of financial responsibilities between the Centre and the States. It appears that the Central Government does not want to provide funds to the States uniformly. The State Governments cannot insist upon the Central Government to provide funds more than what is provided under Section 7 (3). The State Governments have been made responsible to provide funds for implementation of the Act. It is submitted that unless the Central Government takes upon itself to provide entire funds for the implementation of the Act, the object of the Act is not possible to be achieved, particularly when the State Governments have publicly declared their inability to implement the Act on account of paucity of funds.
Section 10 talks of duty of parents to admit his child in neighbourhood school. It is submitted that the duty of parent is alright but where is the duty of the State to bring the child to the school. The State has completely absolved itself of such duty. Section 13 (2) provides punishment with fine against a school, if it is found violating the provisions relating to ‘no capitation fee and screening procedure for admission’. Interestingly, the Central Government has lost sight of the fact that if a school is punished with fine; such amount of fine would simply be passed on by the school to the children by levying the same in the fee slip. It is submitted that thereby it is the child and not the school which would be punished. What is required is the punishment with imprisonment and not merely punishment with fine.
Section 26 permits the Government to keep the vacancies of the teachers unfilled up to 10% of the total sanctioned strength. It is a well known fact that on average 10 % of the teaching staff at a time remains on leave for one reason or another. Therefore, there is a need to have 10% extra teaching staff instead of reducing it by 10% as contemplated in the RTE Bill, 2008. Section 31 talks of monitoring of child’s right to education by NCPCR. Experience with all the Commissions including NCPCR is that all these Commissions work like the department of the Government. Moreover, the Government has not so far appointed full strength members in the NCPCR. It is submitted that the District Judge of every District in the country, should be entrusted with the work of monitoring of child’s right to education. I am conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Judges are already burdened with deciding so many pending cases but one can not lose sight of the fact that the right to education is a most precious human and fundamental right and any further delay in implementation of the same would be a great peril to the nation. The Bill does not at all talk of accountability of the authorities. Unless there are provisions for the penalties against the erring authorities similar to those available in the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is really doubtful if the authorities would honestly perform their tasks.
Our constitutional goal is to achieve casteless and classless society as has been highlighted by a seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in OBC reservation in educational institutions case. The Government should have brought a Bill which would have directions towards casteless and classless society. However, the Bill in the present form, on the other hand, perpetuates the inequality and unjust discrimination amongst the children in the matter of right to education. That while expressing the above concerns regarding the serious drawbacks of the RTE Bill, 2008 particularly when it fails the test of Constitutional mandate, it cannot be over emphasised that the Bill should not be delayed any further on account of need to have a more comprehensive national debate on the same in the interest of the future of the children.
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
-by Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Undoubtedly, some of the provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are laudable. Section 3 talks of right to free and compulsory education and admission in a neighbourhood school. Section 4 talks of admission of child in class appropriate to his or her age. Sections 8 & 9 talk of obligations of the government to provide compulsory education to children. Section 12 talks of obligation of the unaided recognised private schools to provide free seats to the extent of 25% to the children of the economically weaker sections. Section 13 (1) talks of “no capitation fee” and “no screening procedure” for admission. Section 14 talks of admission without insisting upon production of age proof. Section 16 talks of “no expulsion of a child”. Section 17 bans corporal punishment. Section 23 talks of formation of school management committees. Section 23 ensures recruitment of only qualified teachers. Section 25 talks of ensuring Pupil-Teacher Ratio as specified in the schedule. Section 32 talks of grievance redressal mechanism.
On the other hand, several provisions of the RTE Bill, 2008 are meant to legalise and to perpetuate the existing unjust and discriminatory school education system based on socio-economic status. Section 3 (b) defines “capitation fee” means any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school. The import of this provision is that a school is free to notify any amount of fee whether needed or not and once it is notified, it will be legal. The Bill does not provide any fee regulatory mechanism to check the menace of commercialisation of education. Moreover, the right of every child to receive free and compulsory education as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution does not depend on the capacity of the parents to afford fee or not. Therefore, every child whether studying in private or State-run school, is entitled to free education. The State should bear the entire expenses even of the children studying in private-run schools. On the other hand, Section 8 disentitles a child studying in such private school even to claim from the State the reimbursement of expenditure incurred.
Section 2 (n) instead of permitting only same category of schools for all the children, sanctifies different categories of schools for the children of different socio-economic status. Most objectionable is; “a school belonging to specified category”. Section 2 (p) defines “specified category” in relation to a school, means a school known as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik School or any other school having a distinct character which may be specified by notification, by the appropriate Government. How can you have such a specified category of school with ‘State Funding’ which does not provide equal opportunity to all the children in the matter of admission? That providing only 25% of seats to the children of weaker sections in such ‘specified category of school’ is a cruel joke.
Section 7 talks of sharing of financial responsibilities between the Centre and the States. It appears that the Central Government does not want to provide funds to the States uniformly. The State Governments cannot insist upon the Central Government to provide funds more than what is provided under Section 7 (3). The State Governments have been made responsible to provide funds for implementation of the Act. It is submitted that unless the Central Government takes upon itself to provide entire funds for the implementation of the Act, the object of the Act is not possible to be achieved, particularly when the State Governments have publicly declared their inability to implement the Act on account of paucity of funds.
Section 10 talks of duty of parents to admit his child in neighbourhood school. It is submitted that the duty of parent is alright but where is the duty of the State to bring the child to the school. The State has completely absolved itself of such duty. Section 13 (2) provides punishment with fine against a school, if it is found violating the provisions relating to ‘no capitation fee and screening procedure for admission’. Interestingly, the Central Government has lost sight of the fact that if a school is punished with fine; such amount of fine would simply be passed on by the school to the children by levying the same in the fee slip. It is submitted that thereby it is the child and not the school which would be punished. What is required is the punishment with imprisonment and not merely punishment with fine.
Section 26 permits the Government to keep the vacancies of the teachers unfilled up to 10% of the total sanctioned strength. It is a well known fact that on average 10 % of the teaching staff at a time remains on leave for one reason or another. Therefore, there is a need to have 10% extra teaching staff instead of reducing it by 10% as contemplated in the RTE Bill, 2008. Section 31 talks of monitoring of child’s right to education by NCPCR. Experience with all the Commissions including NCPCR is that all these Commissions work like the department of the Government. Moreover, the Government has not so far appointed full strength members in the NCPCR. It is submitted that the District Judge of every District in the country, should be entrusted with the work of monitoring of child’s right to education. I am conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Judges are already burdened with deciding so many pending cases but one can not lose sight of the fact that the right to education is a most precious human and fundamental right and any further delay in implementation of the same would be a great peril to the nation. The Bill does not at all talk of accountability of the authorities. Unless there are provisions for the penalties against the erring authorities similar to those available in the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is really doubtful if the authorities would honestly perform their tasks.
Our constitutional goal is to achieve casteless and classless society as has been highlighted by a seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in OBC reservation in educational institutions case. The Government should have brought a Bill which would have directions towards casteless and classless society. However, the Bill in the present form, on the other hand, perpetuates the inequality and unjust discrimination amongst the children in the matter of right to education. That while expressing the above concerns regarding the serious drawbacks of the RTE Bill, 2008 particularly when it fails the test of Constitutional mandate, it cannot be over emphasised that the Bill should not be delayed any further on account of need to have a more comprehensive national debate on the same in the interest of the future of the children.
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
-by Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Monday, February 16, 2009
Doon School, Dehradun commercializes Education
16th February 2009
To
Hon’ble Shri Arjun Singh
Union Education Minister
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi – 110001
Hon’ble Shri B.C Khanduri
Chief Minister
State of Uttrakhand
Secretariat
Dehradun, Uttrakhand
Subject: Registration Fee of Rs.36, 000/- for entrance test alone for admission in classes VII and VIII in The Doon School, Dehradun
Respected Sir,
I am constrained to encroach upon your valuable time to highlight the unconstitutional practices of the Doon School, The Mall, Dehradun for indulging into an extortionist act of extracting a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the name of Registration fee for Admission to classes VII & VIII from desirous students and thereby indulging in an act which can be without any double thought be termed as “Commercialization of Education”. It is submitted that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of entrance test, every applicant/student has to part with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- against the cost of the prospectus.
Hon’ble Shri Arjun Singh
Union Education Minister
Government of India
Shastri Bhavan
New Delhi – 110001
Hon’ble Shri B.C Khanduri
Chief Minister
State of Uttrakhand
Secretariat
Dehradun, Uttrakhand
Subject: Registration Fee of Rs.36, 000/- for entrance test alone for admission in classes VII and VIII in The Doon School, Dehradun
Respected Sir,
I am constrained to encroach upon your valuable time to highlight the unconstitutional practices of the Doon School, The Mall, Dehradun for indulging into an extortionist act of extracting a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in the name of Registration fee for Admission to classes VII & VIII from desirous students and thereby indulging in an act which can be without any double thought be termed as “Commercialization of Education”. It is submitted that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of entrance test, every applicant/student has to part with a sum of Rs. 1,000/- against the cost of the prospectus.
With the growing concern on the issue of education, it is needless to say that commercialization of education is illegal and the same shall neither be permissible nor it shall be allowed to perpetuate. It is unfortunate that any person who is desirous of educating his ward in the Doon School has to make a hefty payment of a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as registration / entrance test fee besides payment of Rs.1, 000/- on account of prospectus to appear for a written test. In the subsequent stage, the candidates who qualify the written test are further required to appear for a personal interview. Those students who are successful in passing the interview round are finally granted admission.
On the basis of a personal enquiry, it has been known that some 500 students registered themselves for registration/ entrance test in class VII and some 450 students for Class VIII for the Academic Session 2009-2010. Out of the above mentioned 450, only 32 students qualified the written test and 22 students were admitted to Class VIII. On the basis of the above, the school amassed a sum of Rs. 3, 42, 00, 000/- in the name of registration fee only. The income accrued by the sale of prospectus is however manifold but not known.
Further, the profit making process of the Commercial Education Shop doesn’t stop here and every admitted student is further charged a fee of Rs. 3.2 Lacs every year in form of School fee.
It is pertinent to mention that in our Country, where Education is a matter of a Right, the huge fee slabs and unjustified miscellaneous fees charged by the Doon School holds no justification and is in blatant disregard and violation of the well established notion of Right to Education guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Though the School was registered as a non profit making body, it appears on the face and in the light of the aforesaid facts that the School has a keen interest in acting as a private limited Company and deriving maximum profits.
It is unfortunate that such mal practices are prevalent and adopted by the education institutions. This matter, however calls for an urgent need, not only to prohibit the Doon School from committing such mal practices but also to consider the fact that not only the above cited School but various other Education Institutions are involved in such practices, A national level legal framework to regulate the functioning the Education Institutions in this regard is need of the hour, so as to ensure that education remains a right and not a commercial Shop, and every Indian enjoys the right without being discriminated on the basis of his/her economic or Social status.
We, therefore, most humbly request that the central government should forthwith bring legislation regulating unaided private schools so to ensure that they do not dare to indulge in commercializing the school education by exploiting the hapless parents/students of this country. We also request you to kindly direct the management of the Doon School to refund forthwith the registration fee of Rs. 36,000/- to all the students/parents.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09811101923
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09811101923
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Parents protest school fee hike
Sunit Dhawan
Tribune News Service
Gurgaon, February 15
Hundreds of parents of school-going children staged a protest demonstration here today against certain private schools’ move to hike the tuition fee of students. They marched in protest against from the local Ram Lila Ground to the deputy commissioner’s camp office, where they submitted a memorandum to be forwarded to the Haryana Governor, Chief Minister and Education Minister.
Ashok Agarwal, president, All-India Parents Association asserted that the apex court had clearly told the state governments to ensure the provision of education to children as it was their fundamental right.
“Still, there is no proper system in place to check or control the functioning of the privately managed schools and other educational institutions,” he said.
Vashisht Kumar Goyal, president, Millennium Parents Association, Gurgaon, maintained that the government should set up an education commission to regulate the functioning of the private schools once and for all.
“It is high time that the state authorities clarified and implemented a proper education policy which also covers the private schools,” he maintained.
Terming the move on fee hike by certain private schools “illegal and unconstitutional”, The protesting parents stressed that in the absence of a well-defined regulatory mechanism, the private school managements were free to take decisions on their own.
Monday, January 26, 2009
LAWYERS MEET ON FEE HIKE IN UNAIDED SCHOOLS
Dear Friends,
We are all silent witness to the arbitrary and exorbitant fee hike every year in all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi. The schools as usual have hiked fee at the rate of more than 10% in the beginning of the current academic year of 2008-2009. Now, in the mid-year of this academic year, the schools are proposing to further hike the fee at the rate of 70% to 100% with effect from 01.04.2008 plus arrears for nearly 32 months ranging between Rs. 10, 000/- to Rs. 30, 000/- per student on the pretext of sixth pay commission recommendations. Some of the schools have already enforced the proposed fee hike in violation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh (AIR 1999 Delhi 124 DB).
It is unfortunate that the Government of Delhi which is not only empowered by law but has also a constitutional and a statutory duty to check the menace of commercialization of education by the unaided recognized private schools has always remained a passive spectator. We all know that commercialization of education is legally prohibited and a school charging arbitrary and exorbitant fee is guilty of indulging in commercialization of education.
It is submitted that both the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have well settled the principles for determination of fee and other charges by unaided recognized private schools. However, both the Government of Delhi and the Schools are issuing misleading public statements resulting in utter confusion amongst the parents/students.
The lawyers as a class is not only affected by such arbitrary and unjustified fee hike but has also a crucial role to fight for the protection of the rights of the parents/students. It is, therefore, decided to hold an informal interactive session of lawyers to discuss the current issue of fee hike in unaided recognized private schools. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate (M-09811101923) who has been consistently advocating the cause of the parents/students since 1997 has agreed to brief the lawyer friends on this hot issue.
It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly participate in this informal interactive session of lawyers to be held on Tuesday, 27.01.2009 from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm at Parking Lot, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, opposite State Bank of India, Delhi-110054.
With regards,
Kusum Sharma, Advocate, President, Social Jurist
Mob- 9818026552
Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate, General Secretary,
Faith Academy Parents’ Association
Mob- 9268130817
25.01.2009
LAWYERS FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATION
We are all silent witness to the arbitrary and exorbitant fee hike every year in all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi. The schools as usual have hiked fee at the rate of more than 10% in the beginning of the current academic year of 2008-2009. Now, in the mid-year of this academic year, the schools are proposing to further hike the fee at the rate of 70% to 100% with effect from 01.04.2008 plus arrears for nearly 32 months ranging between Rs. 10, 000/- to Rs. 30, 000/- per student on the pretext of sixth pay commission recommendations. Some of the schools have already enforced the proposed fee hike in violation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh (AIR 1999 Delhi 124 DB).
It is unfortunate that the Government of Delhi which is not only empowered by law but has also a constitutional and a statutory duty to check the menace of commercialization of education by the unaided recognized private schools has always remained a passive spectator. We all know that commercialization of education is legally prohibited and a school charging arbitrary and exorbitant fee is guilty of indulging in commercialization of education.
It is submitted that both the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have well settled the principles for determination of fee and other charges by unaided recognized private schools. However, both the Government of Delhi and the Schools are issuing misleading public statements resulting in utter confusion amongst the parents/students.
The lawyers as a class is not only affected by such arbitrary and unjustified fee hike but has also a crucial role to fight for the protection of the rights of the parents/students. It is, therefore, decided to hold an informal interactive session of lawyers to discuss the current issue of fee hike in unaided recognized private schools. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate (M-09811101923) who has been consistently advocating the cause of the parents/students since 1997 has agreed to brief the lawyer friends on this hot issue.
It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly participate in this informal interactive session of lawyers to be held on Tuesday, 27.01.2009 from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm at Parking Lot, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, opposite State Bank of India, Delhi-110054.
With regards,
Kusum Sharma, Advocate, President, Social Jurist
Mob- 9818026552
Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate, General Secretary,
Faith Academy Parents’ Association
Mob- 9268130817
25.01.2009
LAWYERS FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Saturday, January 24, 2009
FEE HIKE - GOVT MUST IMPLEMENT HIGH COURT RULING
How any public school in Delhi can seek fee hike without first getting their financial records from 1996-97 and onwards examined by a statutory committee as per the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 30.10.1998 in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh case? Though the Bansal Committee report is yet not available for comments, but what is gathered from the news reports is that the Bansal Committee has recommended that tuition fee of not more than Rs. 500/- and arrears to be collected from students should not exceed Rs. 4500/- per head. Of course, the Committee has suggested that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of private schools in the city and their financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike.
It may be noted that what ever tuition fee is increased, it will automatically increase development fee at the rate of 10 percent of the increased tuition fee. If Re. 500/- is increased in the tuition fee, Re. 50/- would be automatically increased in the Development fee, meaning thereby that the actual fee increased is not Re. 500/- but Rs.550/-. The Bansal Committee’s suggestion that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of the private schools in the city and financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike is in the line of 1998 directives given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the recommendation for increase of any fee without examination of accounts by the statutory committee appears to be self contradictory.
No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.
67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”
That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.
It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.
It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
I appeared before the Bansal Committee on behalf of the Social Jurist and the Delhi Abhbhavak Mahasangh to place the parents’ view point. It was submitted that the Committee has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It was also submitted that if the Committee did not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.
After the Bansal Committee has submitted its report to the Government, the ball is now in the court of the Government. The Government has so far failed to implement the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also to protect the hapless parents/students. It is time to wait and watch.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
(15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com )
It may be noted that what ever tuition fee is increased, it will automatically increase development fee at the rate of 10 percent of the increased tuition fee. If Re. 500/- is increased in the tuition fee, Re. 50/- would be automatically increased in the Development fee, meaning thereby that the actual fee increased is not Re. 500/- but Rs.550/-. The Bansal Committee’s suggestion that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of the private schools in the city and financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike is in the line of 1998 directives given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the recommendation for increase of any fee without examination of accounts by the statutory committee appears to be self contradictory.
No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.
It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.
67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”
That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.
It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.
It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
I appeared before the Bansal Committee on behalf of the Social Jurist and the Delhi Abhbhavak Mahasangh to place the parents’ view point. It was submitted that the Committee has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It was also submitted that if the Committee did not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.
After the Bansal Committee has submitted its report to the Government, the ball is now in the court of the Government. The Government has so far failed to implement the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also to protect the hapless parents/students. It is time to wait and watch.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
(15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com )
MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL ILLEGALLY HIKES FEE
To
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that the hapless parents of the students studying in Mount Carmel School, Anand Niketan A-21, New Delhi- 110021 have complained to me in writing that the management of the said school has issued a demand notice dated 15.12.2008 to all the parents of the students of the school whereby they have been directed to shell out thousands of rupees towards arrears of enhanced fees i.e. Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1.4.2008 on account of increase in salary bill of the teachers due to implementation of sixth pay commission. Copies of the parents’ complaint dated 19.1.2009 and school’s demand notice dated 15.12.2008 are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
We have worked out the increase in the salary bill which comes to approx. 12 lakhs p.m. But dividing this by the full fee paying students i.e. 1944 we find a need for an increase of approx. Rs. 620/- p.m. to meet the current requirements. However, it has been decided to increase the tuition fees currently by 30% only i.e. Rs. 550/- only for the financial year 2008-2009.
Enclosed please find bill for 4th quarter at the new rate plus arrears of quarter 1,2 & 3. Fee for 4th quarter may be paid by 23rd January 2009 and the arrears be cleared latest be 28th February 2009 before the start of 2nd term examination. For class X and XII kindly clear dues by February 20th, 2009 before collection of Admit Card.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
It is further brought to your notice that the school had earlier hiked the tuition fee on 1.4.2008 from Rs. 1650/- to Rs. 1800/- per month plus development fund from Rs. 165/- to Rs. 180/- per month (more than 10%). In terms of the aforesaid school notice dated 15.12.2008, the school has further hiked the tuition fee from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2350/- per month plus development fee from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 235/- per month (30%) with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the total fee hiked is more than 40% in the current academic year of 2008-2009.
It is submitted that the school has hiked the fee without following the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the directions having been given by the honourable Delhi High Court on 30.10.1998 in case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. The parents are being forced by the school to deposit the fee at the increased rates as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
That the aforesaid action and conduct of the school is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to commercialisation of education and warrants serious action. The fee hiked by the school is otherwise also unjust and unreasonable.
It is, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action on urgent basis may be taken against the school thereby preventing the school to charge fees and other charges from the parents at the increased rates in terms of the school notice dated 15.12.2008. It is also requested that the school may be directed to refund the access amounts to the parents who have already deposited with school the fee and other charges as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that the hapless parents of the students studying in Mount Carmel School, Anand Niketan A-21, New Delhi- 110021 have complained to me in writing that the management of the said school has issued a demand notice dated 15.12.2008 to all the parents of the students of the school whereby they have been directed to shell out thousands of rupees towards arrears of enhanced fees i.e. Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1.4.2008 on account of increase in salary bill of the teachers due to implementation of sixth pay commission. Copies of the parents’ complaint dated 19.1.2009 and school’s demand notice dated 15.12.2008 are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
We have worked out the increase in the salary bill which comes to approx. 12 lakhs p.m. But dividing this by the full fee paying students i.e. 1944 we find a need for an increase of approx. Rs. 620/- p.m. to meet the current requirements. However, it has been decided to increase the tuition fees currently by 30% only i.e. Rs. 550/- only for the financial year 2008-2009.
Enclosed please find bill for 4th quarter at the new rate plus arrears of quarter 1,2 & 3. Fee for 4th quarter may be paid by 23rd January 2009 and the arrears be cleared latest be 28th February 2009 before the start of 2nd term examination. For class X and XII kindly clear dues by February 20th, 2009 before collection of Admit Card.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
It is further brought to your notice that the school had earlier hiked the tuition fee on 1.4.2008 from Rs. 1650/- to Rs. 1800/- per month plus development fund from Rs. 165/- to Rs. 180/- per month (more than 10%). In terms of the aforesaid school notice dated 15.12.2008, the school has further hiked the tuition fee from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2350/- per month plus development fee from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 235/- per month (30%) with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the total fee hiked is more than 40% in the current academic year of 2008-2009.
It is submitted that the school has hiked the fee without following the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the directions having been given by the honourable Delhi High Court on 30.10.1998 in case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. The parents are being forced by the school to deposit the fee at the increased rates as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
That the aforesaid action and conduct of the school is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to commercialisation of education and warrants serious action. The fee hiked by the school is otherwise also unjust and unreasonable.
It is, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action on urgent basis may be taken against the school thereby preventing the school to charge fees and other charges from the parents at the increased rates in terms of the school notice dated 15.12.2008. It is also requested that the school may be directed to refund the access amounts to the parents who have already deposited with school the fee and other charges as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
Friday, January 23, 2009
CAN'T PAY FEE - CAN'T TAKE UNIT TEST
Kirtika class IX-A student of Happy Senior School, C-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (Phone 41424681) was not allowed to take unit test of Hindi subject on 12.01.2009 because her parents could not pay full school fees of Kirtika. Apprehending that when she will go to school on Monday, 19.01.2009, the school will again not allow her to take unit test, she has sent written request to Shri Ashok Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court to intervene into the matter.
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Kartika parents’ (M-9891962968) are economically weak (parents’ total income is Rs. 4,000/- per month) and are unable to afford full fee of Kartika and Kartika’s brother Nitin, student of class VI A of the same school. On 19.01.2009, it is quite possible that even Nitin may also be not allowed to take unit test for the same reason, i.e. non-payment of full fee.
One may imagine that if Kartika’s parents are unable to pay unrevised full school fees, what will happen when the school will increase its fee and other charges on the pretext of sixth pay commission’s recommendations. Kartika is not all alone to undergo trauma, there are other thousands students like Kartika.
Education in our country has become a commodity notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education to all children. If you are poor, your children have no right to go to good school. How long such injustice would continue?
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
18.01.2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
