GOVERNMENT MUST BRING A CENTRAL LAW ON THE LINES OF TAMIL NADU SCHOOLS (REGULATION OF COLLECTION OF FEE) ACT, 2009
Ashok Agarwal, lawyer & civil rights activist
After the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order of 11.05.2010 dismissing Special Leave Petitions of several Unaided Private Schools of the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Madras High Court Judgment of 09.04.2010 upholding the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (in short, Tamil Nadu Act, 2009) and The Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Rules, 2009, the Central Government now in public interest must bring a national law immediately on the lines of Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 to check the menace of commercialization of education in unaided private schools all over the country and to protect the hapless parents and students from exploitation. The Apex Court has once again re-affirmed the law of the land that the capitation fee, exorbitant fee, profiteering, commercialization of education and exploitation of parents/students by the unaided private schools are impermissible in law and the Government has not only the powers but also the duty to regulate fee in these schools to prevent commercialization of education.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a landmark Judgment on 09.04.2010 dismissing all the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 by holding that the scheme of the Act is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court, and it by and large strikes a balance between the autonomy of the institutions and measures to be taken to prevent commercialization of education. “There are sufficient guidelines in the statute for either approving or fixing the fees. The procedure prescribed provides for appropriate opportunity to the managements. The Committee is headed by a retired High Court Judge. The minority institutions have also to maintain non-exploitative terms as held in P.A.Inamdar’s case. The impugned Act, therefore, cannot be said to be in any way in violation of Articles 19(1) (g) and 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India”, said the Hon’ble Judges.
The Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 was enacted in the backdrop of the fact that in the State of Tamil Nadu, there were about 5500 Nursery/Primary Schools, 4100 Matriculation Schools, 38 Anglo Indian Schools and 500 State Board Schools of Tamil Medium totaling to 10, 148 schools which were unaided. There was no uniformity in their fee structure and on the face of it large numbers of them were charging very high fees, which could not be justified. The Madras High Court while deciding the case has also taken note of the fact that the Government has placed on record considerable material showing that private schools charging exorbitant fees. The High Court has further taken note of the fact that large number of representations have been made by the Parents’ Associations all throughout the State against charging of high fees by particular schools and the news reports of agitation by parents at different places. It was, therefore, felt necessary to regulate their fees.
The salient features of the Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 are: (a) The Committee constituted under Section 5(1) for the purpose of determination of the fee shall be headed by a retired High Court Judge. (b) The Committee has to call upon the private institutions to place before it the proposed fee structure of the institution with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny within the period to be indicated by the Committee in the given notice. (c) After the receipt of the proposal from the concerned institution, the Committee has to verify as to whether the fee proposed by the Private School is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee. (d) In case the Committee is of the view that the fee structure proposed by the institution appears to be correct, taking note of the various facilities provided and that there was no profiteering or collection of exorbitant fee, it has to approve the fee structure. (e) In case the Committee is of the view that the fee structure forwarded by the institution is exorbitant and that there is an element of profiteering, the Committee has to determine some other fee. (f) While fixing some other fee, the Committee has to follow certain procedures taking into consideration the factors as found mentioned under Section 6(1) as well as Rule 3 of the Rules. (g) The determination of the fee as made by the Committee should be intimated to the concerned institution and there upon the institution has got a right to submit their objections within fifteen days. (h) The objection so submitted by the institution shall be examined by the Committee. The Committee has to consider it objectively. The Committee was not expected to reject the objection summarily. As per Section 7(4), the Committee shall have the powers to regulate its own procedure in all matters and it shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding summoning and attendance of witness and related matters. Therefore, the Committee would be within their powers to get the factors verified in respect of the claim made by the institution, to approve their fee structure, as against the fee determined by the Committee. (i) The fee so prescribed would be in operation for a period of three years and at the end of such period, it would be open to the institution to make an application for revision of fees. (j) Under Section 3(2) no fee in excess of the fee determined by the Committee shall be collected in a private school and the punishment provided for contravention thereof is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years. (k) The person convicted shall refund to the pupil from whom the excess fee was collected, such excess fee.
The Madras High Court in Para 21 of the Judgment noted, “The observation of the Supreme Court was against the Government fixing the rigid fee in respect of private institutions. The impugned Act, in no way fixes the rigid fee. It only calls upon the management to forward their fee structure with details as to how they arrive at such a fee structure. The main idea is to see as to whether under the guise of collection of fees they are indirectly collecting the capitation fee or indulging in profiteering. That is why the Act initially uses the term Approval of the fee structure and only in such cases where the committee is of the view that the fee structure proposed is exorbitant and is in the nature of capitation fee or profiteering, it intervenes in the matter and for the purpose of fixing the correct fee, the private institution is given liberty to specify their fee structure, taking into account the expenditure necessary for running the institution as well as its future needs. Thus, it proceeds to determine the fee structure thereafter. In that process, it considers the objections given by the management to the fees proposed by the Committee. The consideration of objections by the Committee cannot be treated as an empty formality. The Committee has to consider the objections made by the institution in an objective manner and if necessary, by inspecting the institution and calling upon the management to produce the records in their possession in respect of various facets and to arrive at a decision as to whether the fee determined by the Committee was the correct one or it requires modification. It cannot be ignored that the committee is a high powered committee headed by a retired High Court Judge”.
The Madras High Court in Para 35 of the Judgment while dealing with the contention of one of the petitioners that the Act runs counter to the policy of ‘common school system’ noted, ‘As can be seen from the judgment in T.M.A. Pai’s case and other cases, the Apex Court has taken cognizance of the fact that private contribution in the field of education is necessary, and Government is not in a position to have sufficient resources for providing education to all. If that is so, it is difficult to bring about a common school system. The Right to Education Act does not prevent private schools. The only thing, which is possible to be realized, is to bring in legislation of fees structure and to check exploitation in private schools, which is sought to be brought about and that being so, the Act cannot be criticized on that score”.
The Madras High Court in Para 36 of the Judgment while commenting on the reservation of 25 percent seats in the private schools for the children belonging to poor strata of society noted, “The Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002 has made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The right to free and compulsory elementary education was a long felt need, which has now been given the status of a fundamental right. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which came into force from 1st April 2010 was a consequential legislation to translate the constitutional intent into action. The RTE Act, 2009 provides for 25% seats in private schools for children from poor families and prohibits donation or capitation fee. Though the RTE Act is Central Legislation, its effective implementation lies in the hands of the State Governments. While implementing the RTE Act from 1st April 2010, the Government of India announced that 25 percent reservation for children from economically weaker sections of the society would be operational from Class I with effect from the academic year 2011. The present impugned legislation if examined in the context of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and RTE Act is also valid”.
It is interesting to note that the parents all over the country have been raising voices against the inaction on the part of the Central and State Governments to check the menace of commercialization of education in unaided private schools. In 1997, on the pretext of 5th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools in Delhi increased fee and other charges ranging from 40% to 400%. This gave rise to unrest amongst the middle class parents and the parents organized themselves against the arbitrary fee hike by the unaided private schools. Needless to say that a PIL was filed in 1997 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was decided on 30.10.1998 in favour of the parents. The High Court laid down the criteria and guidelines of fixing a reasonable fee structure in an unaided private school. The High Court also held that the Government is not only empowered but also has a duty to regulate fee of such schools to prevent commercialization of education and exploitation of parents/students. The schools filed appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the High Court decision which was dismissed on 27.04.2004. The schools took another opportunity through filing a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of Supreme Court decision of 27.04.2004. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also dismissed the review petition on 07.08.2009 reasserting that the fee has to be justified and not arbitrary and there has also to be accountability and transparency.
In 2008, on the pretext of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools all over the country hiked fee and other charges exorbitantly and arbitrarily while Central and State Governments were just mute spectators to the same. This time, the parents all over the country organized themselves to a larger extent and openly protested against the schools and the Governments. The parents associations in many parts of the country approached their respective High Courts by way of filing writ petitions. The agitation by the parents led some States to constitute committees to look into the issue of the arbitrary fee hike. The Government of Delhi constituted S.L Bansal Committee, the State of Maharashtra constituted Kumud Bansal Committee and the State of Goa constituted D.P.Pednekar Committee. It is respectfully submitted that all these Committees in the absence of examining the financial records of each school to determine whether the fee hike was justified or not by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Modern School case, just ended up in making unsound and illogical solutions.
The Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 is providing solution to a larger extent. However, the application of the said Act is limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. In all other States, practically, there are no laws to deal with the fee hike problems. All India Parents Association (AIPA) has since long been demanding a Central Law to deal with the issue of commercialization in unaided private schools but the Central Government has not taken any step in this regard so far. The public interest demands that the Central Government must immediately enact a Central Law may be on the lines of the Tamil Nadu Act, 2009 to check the rampant commercialization of education in unaided private schools all over the country. We need of have a uniform law for all over the country as the problem of exploitation of parents and students by the unaided private schools all over the country is more or less the same. We hope and expect that Shri Kapil Sibal, Union Education Minister will rise to the occasion and sincerely take up this matter on urgent basis.
Last but not the least, we should not forget that while fighting against the exploitation of the parents/students by the unaided private schools, we have to continue our fight for the up-gradation of the standard of education in very Government School all over the country to the level of Kendriya Vidayalays (Central Schools).
{The author is a lawyer, a civil rights activist and also National President, All India Parents’ Association and can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com Mob.09811101923 (30.05.2010)}
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
RTE Postcard Campaign – Students write to Chief Justice of Delhi High Court
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
.bmp)
SOCIAL JURIST
A Civil Rights Group
To 27.05.2010
Hon’ble Shri Dipak Misra
Chief Justice
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
Subject: Grievances of children studying in Government Schools and MCD Schools relating to serious violations of their Right to Education
Respected Sir,
We have the honor to bring to your kind notice the serious violations of the Constitutional and the statutory rights of the children to free and compulsory quality elementary education as envisaged in Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 21-A (right to education) of the Constitution of India and in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which have come to light during RTE POSTCARD CAMPAIGN on 22.05.2010 in which around 150 students from various government schools and MCD Primary Schools in Jehangirpuri Resettlement Colony gathered and wrote postcards addressed to you highlighting good and bad characteristics of their school and seeking your lordship’s intervention for realization of their rights. It is submitted that the campaign was organized by the Social Jurist, a civil rights group in collaboration with NGO ‘Chetnalaya’. The Social Jurist consists of a group of lawyers and social activists dedicated to the cause of common man and particularly of the children. In the larger scheme, the children were grateful that an education facility is available. However, it is also important to highlight the problems for the sake of improvement. All the postcards are attached hereto for your kind perusal and consideration.
Although the historic Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which came into force on April 1, 2010 ensures that children between 6-14 years have access to free and quality elementary education, it must be realized that legislating laws is only half the work done. The government has made a promise to millions of children and it is necessary to ensure that the concerned authorities constantly assess the factors that go into preventing the children from attending school. The government and local authorities are obligated to provide schools, set benchmarks, rules of implementation etc regarding various provisions of the Act. The government has to work towards restoring the sanctity of the childhood of school-going children.
It is understood that the Act aims at those who are not privileged enough to exercise their right to quality education. It has become crucial to inculcate equality in our society where large scale disparity prevails. Therefore, every child is equal before law and all of them should have access to the same quality of education. The responsibility of the concerned authorities does not end at bringing such children to school, the essence of the Act is that they actually attend school and complete their elementary education.
It is submitted that many children had a problems with lack of infrastructure facilities. Most of the government schools still do not have the most fundamental requirements like fans, furniture, doors, clean bathrooms etc. The cases of the students surveyed are telling testimony to this lack of essential facilities. (1) Mustaq, a student of Class II, MCD Primary School, G Block Jhuggi, Jehangirpuri, appreciates that his school has continuous water supply, however he complains that his school environment is unhygienic since the garbage is rarely cleared. Another student, (2) Neha, Class V, MCD Primary School, G Block Jhuggi, Jehangirpuri, complains that their bathrooms are very dirty. It is extremely crucial to maintain hygiene in a study environment; children should not be ill and falling behind their attendance. It is relevant to submit that one of the major causes of large scale drop-out of the girl students is lack of hygienic toilet facility in the schools. The infrastructure in some of the schools is incompetent and will not be able to withstand the sudden growth in demand that the Act has created. (3) Shaheen, Class VII, Govt. Senior Secondary Girls School, K Block, Jehangirpuri, attends classes which are carried out on the ground. (4) Jehangir, Class VIII, Govt. Senior Secondary Boys School, K Block, Jehangirpuri has complained that there are as many as 115 students in his class, which has disrupted the student-teacher ratio of the classroom and (5) Aliya, Class II, MCD Primary School, C Block, Jehangirpuri has also complained that there are too many children in her classroom.
Another aspect that requires attention is the quality of the teachers being recruited by these schools. The concerned authorities should have certain standards and norms for recruitment. Although a large number of teachers will be required to cater to the growing demand, it certainly does not mean that anyone who is qualified will become a teacher. Teachers should be an ideal role model for their students. Teachers should be punctual and encourage curiosity. It is unfortunate that the teacher of (6) Surraiya, Class VII, Govt. Senior Secondary Girls School, K Block, Jehangirpuri beats and hits her students. Another interesting issue raised by (7) Pravesh Kumar, Class X, Govt. Senior Secondary Boys School, A Block, Jehangirpuri was that of children gambling and bullying other students. Are the teachers not paying any attention to this? This violates S. 17 of the Act which condemns physical and mental harassment of the child. On the other hand, teacher of (8) Shehnaz, Class VIII, Rani Chennama Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Jehangirpuri, is always on the mobile phone and teacher of (9) Poonam, Class IV, MCD Primary School, G Block Jhuggi, Jehangirpuri, makes them clear garbage in school. Why is not anyone keeping a check on the behavior of these teachers? This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Should access to education of children come with the penalty of cleaning the school themselves?
Every child should be encouraged to indulge in co-curricular and extra curricular activities regularly. This gives them the opportunity to develop their interest and take their mind off academics. It is unfortunate that the school of (10) Kamal Hassan, Class VI, Govt. Senior Secondary Boys School, K Block, Jehangirpuri, does not have a playground and (11) Aslam, Class II, MCD Primary School, BH Block, Jehangirpuri cannot play or recreate because his playground is too dirty to use. Another problem that requires immediate attention is provision of food at these schools. (12) Priyanka, Class VII, Rani Chennama Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Jehangirpuri and (13) Firoza, Class V, MCD Primary School, G Block Jhuggi, Jehangirpuri complain of the lack of food in their schools, they further say that those who distribute the food end up consuming more. The problems do not end here; many schools still do not have access to water and electricity etc.
The need of the hour is to inculcate an accountability system wherein anyone who disobeys the protocol laid down by the Act will be answerable. Grave violations of the Act are taking place everyday. (14) Shahnawaz, Class IV, MCD Primary Boys School, Jehangirpuri was asked to take an admission test, which according to Section 13 of the Act cannot take place, he was deprived of admission in spite of having cleared the test. It is unfortunate that the school authorities are the ones troubling parents when it comes to admission. One would expect them to provide the correct information, however they have made a mockery of the system by asking the parents of (15) Sanjana, Class VIII, Govt. Senior Secondary Girls School, A Block, Jehangirpuri, to pay for her admission to class VI. There are many children like Rabri, Musharraf and Shahana who have constantly attempted to get admission in schools and they have failed. Parents should be encouraged to come forward and complain, it is the only way the system will be regularly assessed.
The following problems were highlighted in the postcards:
1. That many of the postcards were illegible, some were even unfilled showed the lack of proper grooming of the children at school.
2. Infrastructure remains a major setback. Students should have access to clean water, toilet and regular electricity.
3. A proper student-pupil ratio must be determined; the teacher should be able to give all her students individual attention.
4. Benchmarks need to be urgently determined for evaluation of students and performance of teachers.
5. Some teachers discourage students from raising questions.
6. Certain teachers physically abuse and mentally harass students.
7. Some teachers insult the students.
8. Teachers must stop use of mobile phones in the classrooms.
9. Teachers forcing children to clean garbage.
10. Schools arbitrarily denying admission to the children.
The above stated are only a fraction of the problems. It is unfortunate that access to education has been a constant struggle for the unprivileged and disempowered. The State was expected to bring all the children into school within ten years of the commencement of the Constitution but miserably failed. Unnikrishnan’s landmark judgment (1993) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court declaring right to education a fundamental right of every child has never been implemented. Now Article 21-A has been inserted in the Constitution which mandates State to provide free and compulsory education to all the children in the age group 6 to 14 years. Now that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 has been passed and come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2010. It is submitted that despite all these legislations and assurances, the children of the masses are continued to be deprived of their right to quality education.
We, therefore, most humbly request you, Sir, to kindly take cognizance of these postcards and initiate appropriate proceedings against both the State Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to redress the just, legal and bonafide grievances of the students of these schools relating to serious violations of their right to education.
Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely,
Ashok Agarwal
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-09811101923
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
She fought 25 years for Rs 84,will get Rs 2K
Smriti Singh | TNN
New Delhi: It took a woman over a quarter of a century to finally get a sum of Rs 84 as part of bonus from her employer.
In 1984, Padmawati was informed that a bonus of Rs 84 promised to her by her employer M/s Superbazaar co-operative store will not be given. Sixty-six other labourers also learned that they will get no bonus.
I worked in Superbazaar during 1983-1984 as a packer on piece-rate basis.The management declared a bonus for the duration we worked. However, when we asked for it the company refused, recalled Padmawati, who is now 50 years old. All 67 employees then filed a case against the store through their counsel, Ashok Aggarwal.
Even as the hearing began in 1984, it took 15 years for the court to settle the case.While in December 1999, the labour court in Tis Hazari decided in favour of the labourers and directed the store to pay them within three months,the ordeal did not end there.The store moved Delhi high court in 2000 challenging the trial courts order and managed to get a stay. Twenty-five years later on May,2010 the petitioners finally got justice with the cooperative store agreeing before the HC to pay them their due on pro rata basis.
The respondents workmen are directed to appear before the registrar general of this court, along with documents in support of their identity,to get the payment, the court said, expressing concern over the fact that the payments were delayed by over 10 years.
Padmawati will get over Rs 2000, including interest.But she is the least satisfied. I never knew it would take a lifetime before we get our money.I had given up hope.I will get a lot more than Rs 84,but the battle was still not worth giving 25 years, she said.Ashok Aggarwal said, It took a long time but any order in favour of the workers is a landmark judgment.
smriti.singh@timesgroup.com
THE TIMES OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
New Delhi: It took a woman over a quarter of a century to finally get a sum of Rs 84 as part of bonus from her employer.
In 1984, Padmawati was informed that a bonus of Rs 84 promised to her by her employer M/s Superbazaar co-operative store will not be given. Sixty-six other labourers also learned that they will get no bonus.
I worked in Superbazaar during 1983-1984 as a packer on piece-rate basis.The management declared a bonus for the duration we worked. However, when we asked for it the company refused, recalled Padmawati, who is now 50 years old. All 67 employees then filed a case against the store through their counsel, Ashok Aggarwal.
Even as the hearing began in 1984, it took 15 years for the court to settle the case.While in December 1999, the labour court in Tis Hazari decided in favour of the labourers and directed the store to pay them within three months,the ordeal did not end there.The store moved Delhi high court in 2000 challenging the trial courts order and managed to get a stay. Twenty-five years later on May,2010 the petitioners finally got justice with the cooperative store agreeing before the HC to pay them their due on pro rata basis.
The respondents workmen are directed to appear before the registrar general of this court, along with documents in support of their identity,to get the payment, the court said, expressing concern over the fact that the payments were delayed by over 10 years.
Padmawati will get over Rs 2000, including interest.But she is the least satisfied. I never knew it would take a lifetime before we get our money.I had given up hope.I will get a lot more than Rs 84,but the battle was still not worth giving 25 years, she said.Ashok Aggarwal said, It took a long time but any order in favour of the workers is a landmark judgment.
smriti.singh@timesgroup.com
THE TIMES OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
13 yrs old Nafees would go to work if school fails to grant him admission
To,
01.05.2010
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of
Civil Lines, Delhi-54,
Sub: -13 yrs old Nafees would go to work if school fails to grant him admission
Dear Sir,
We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that Gandhi Memorial Govt. Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Shahdara, Delhi-32 has denied admission to 13 years old Nafees r/o E-49, J-1/43 Janta Mazdoor Colony, Zafrabad, Delhi (M-9350690068) in class VI despite Nafees having a valid T.C. of class V pass from a recognized school, namely, Aman Public school, Sambhal, Muradabad, U.P. with him. Last year also, he had approached the school for admission but it was not granted. His parents are not alive. He is dependent on his brother Layeek and living with him at
Mr. Layeek, the brother of Nafees has given a complaint dated 27.04.2010 to me stating that if his brother Nafees is not granted admission this year, Nafees would work as child labourer. Copies of the complaint, the T.C. and the marksheet are attached hereto for your ready reference.
The school authorities must realize that by not granting admission to the children in the school, they are forcing the children to join the army of child labour. In this way, the school authorities are responsible for perpetuating and the growth of child labour in this country.
It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly look into this matter and take the erring official to task so to ensure that children are not forced to go to work instead of going to school.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M-9811101923RTE Act, 2009 - Delhi Govt. agrees with SJ to done away with the requirement of passing test for admission to class VI – VIII in State run schools
Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group by letter dated 30.03.2010 addressed to the Chief Minister of Delhi and the Director of Education seriously objected to the procedure for admission through ‘admission test’ with regard to admission of students in classes VI, VII and VIII in Govt. schools as given in the public advertisement dated 25.03.2010 on the ground the same tantamount to “screening procedure” which is not only prohibited by Section 13 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) but also punishable at law.
In response to the aforesaid letter dated 30.03.2010 of the Social Jurist, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education by letter dated 13.04.2010 informed Shri Ashok Agarwal Advocate, Advisor, Social Jurist that “the requirement of passing the test as mentioned in Para 1 under ‘Criteria for Admission’ in the Admission Notice published on 25th March 2010 is done away with. In fact, even in the past, the Directorate of Education has given admission to all the children irrespective of their marks scored in the admission test. The results of the test will be used to allot a nearby school based on preference as far as possible given by students & additionally in respect of children who have not studied in any recognized school to determine their special training needs for their admission in age appropriate class.”
The Social Jurist appreciates the above decision of the Delhi Govt.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09811101923
24.04.2010
Note: Copies of Delhi Govt. letter dated 13.04.2010 and the Social Jurist letter dated 30.03.2010 are pasted below.
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI-110054
No.F. DE.23(363)/Sch. Br. /4636
Dated: 13/4/10
To,
Sh. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate,
Advisor, Social Jurist.
Sub: Reply of letter of Mr. Ashok Agarwal dated 30.03.2010 for admission to class VI-VIII.
Sir,
With reference to your above mentioned letter, the requirement of passing the test as mentioned in Para 1 under ‘Criteria for Admission’ in the Admission Notice published on 25th March 2010 is done away with. In fact, even in the past, the Directorate of Education has given admission to all the children irrespective of their marks scored in the admission test. The results of the test will be used to allot a nearby school based on preference as far as possible given by students & additionally in respect of children who have not studied in any recognized school to determine their special training needs for their admission in age appropriate class.
Yours Sincerely,
Sd/- 12.4.10
(DR. SUNITA S. KAUSHIK)
ADDL. DE (SCHOOL)
SOCIAL JURIST
Dated: 30.03.2010
To,
1. Hon’ble Mrs. Sheila Dikshit,
Chief Minister of Delhi ,
Secretariat, I. P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. The Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ,
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Line, Delhi-110054
Sub: Delhi Government violates RTE Act, 2009 by subjecting children to screening procedure for admission to Classes VI, VII and VIII in State-run schools
Dear Madam/Sir,
We have the honor to invite your kind attention to the admission notice issued by the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi that appeared in the newspaper “The Indian Express” dated 25.03.2010 regarding admission of students to classes VI, VII, VIII, and IX in all Govt. schools run by DOE. The said admission notice invites students for admission in Government-run schools and is meant for students who have either not studied in any recognized school and those who have studied in recognized unaided/Government aided/Government school but wish to change their school in class VI to IX.
The aforesaid admission notice contains the following in its B-Part under the caption the “Open Admission” which is the subject of the present representation. The said admission notice is reproduced as under:-
“(B) OPEN ADMISSION
The admission is open in all Government schools run by the Directorate of Education and Govt. Aided Schools where the enrolment is low on the basis of admission test and as per vacancy available in class for all students who have either not studied in any recognized school (on the basis of affidavit) and those who have studied in recognized unaided/Government aided/Government school but with to change their school in class VI to IX as per following schedule and criteria.
ONLINE REGISTRATION FOR ADMISSION TEST
Registration can be done online from any Government School of the Directorate or Office of the Deputy Director of Education of Jeevan Service Centres run by department of Information and Technology, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi whichever is nearest to the residence of the child from 1st April, 2010 (Thursday) to 15th April, 2010 (Thursday) through Department’s website www.edudel.nic.in
ADMISSION TEST
The centralized admission test for all classes VI, VII, VIII and IX will be held on 20th April, 2010 (Tuesday). Admission test will consist of objective type questions.
CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION
(1) Students of recognized unaided/Government aided/Government school will be ranked based on merit as per their admission test result. The students who have not studied in any recognized school will have to pass the exam besides being ranked on the basis of their merit.
(2) The school will be allotted on the basis of merit cum choice of school. However, in all cases, students will be allotted school on merit and distance criteria generated through computerized system nearest to residence as filled by the Parent/Guardian at the time of registration. Request for change of school once allotted on the basis of residence address filled at the time of registration will not be entertained.
DECLARATION OF ADMISSION TEST RESULT
The list of selected students will be selected at all examination centres (Cluster schools/Zonal offices/Offices of the Deputy Director of Education/Computer cell, Directorate of Education, Old Secretariat) on 28th April, 2010 (Wednesday) at 3.00 P.M. Selected students will be required to take admission in designated school by 1st May, 2010 (Saturday).
Sd/-
Additional Director of Education (School)”
It is submitted that the above reproduced procedure for admission through admission test with regard to admission of students in classes VI, VII and VIII in Govt. schools is prohibited by Section.13 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009). It is further submitted that under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section.13 of the RTE Act, 2009 such screening procedure is an offence punishable with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contravention.
Your attention is invited to the abovementioned provisions of Section.13 of the RTE Act, 2009 which are reproduced as under:
“Section 13 (1) No school or person shall, while admitting a child, collect any capitation fee and subject the child or his or her parents or guardian to any screening procedure.
(2) Any school or person, if in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1),-
(a) receives capitation fee, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten times the capitation fee charged;
(b) subjects a child to screening procedure, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contraventions.”
Your kind attention is also invited to Section 2(o) of the RTE Act, 2009 which is reproduced as under:
Section 2(o) “screening procedure” means the method of selection for admission of a child, in preference over another, other than a random method;
From the mere reading of the aforementioned provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, it is abundantly clear that no school can subject a student to any screening procedure (which includes admission test) for his/her admission in classes I to VIII.
It is also submitted that the provisions of the much lauded RTE Act, 2009 shall come into effect from April 1, 2010 and are, therefore, applicable to the admission of students in the academic year 2010-2011. It is submitted that the aforementioned procedure of admission to students in classes VI, VII, and VIII in Govt.-run schools as mentioned in the admission notice dated 25.03.2010 is in clear contravention of the provisions of Section.13 of RTE Act, 2009.
It is, therefore, requested that the aforementioned admission notice be withdrawn and another admission notice in conformity with the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009 should be published. It is also requested that your decision on the subject be intimated to the undersigned within three days of the receipt of this representation, failing which, we shall be constrained to file a Public Interest Litigation in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court questioning the validity of your aforesaid admission notice at your risk and costs.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
M- 9811101923
SCHOOL ASK TO IMPLEMENT VTH PAY PANEL RECOMMENDATION
April 26, 2010 – Upholding the 11th January 2010 ruling of a Single Judge (Justice Kailash Gambhir), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court headed by the Acting Chief Justice Madan B. Lokur today asked
Justice Kailash Gambhir had asked the school to pay all arrears w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to a group of teachers who had approached the High Court after the school denied them the benefits of Vth Pay Commission.
The case was filed by four teachers of the school through Advocate Ashok Agarwal, contending that they were also entitled to revision of pay scale equivalent to the teachers employed in schools run by Delhi Government.
Appearing for the teachers, Advocate Ashok Agarwal argued before the Division Bench that Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 mandates that the employees of all the Unaided Private Recognized Schools are entitled to benefit of pay and allowances etc. equivalent to what is paid to their counterparts working in schools run by Government and these unaided schools are obliged to comply the law.
When Senior Advocate N K Kaul, appearing for the school, brought to the notice of the Court that the Directorate of Education has failed to implement the recommendations of Vth Pay Commission uniformly w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in all the unaided private recognized Schools, the Court issued limited notice to the Directorate of Education to explain as to why the Government has not been implementing the Vth Pay Commission recommendations uniformly in all the unaided recognized Schools.
Mr. Kaul pointed out that there were 28 Zones in Delhi with 1211 schools and the school had sought information under RTI Act, 2005 and the same with respect to only 6 zones was supplied which shows that out of 105 schools in the 6 zones, 35 schools implemented the Vth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996, 03 schools implemented the same w.e.f. 01.04.1997 and as many as 67 schools have implemented the same post 01.04.1997.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
26.04.2010
List of some of the unaided recognized private schools which failed to implement Vth pay commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.1996
| S.No. | Name of School | Date of implementation of Vth Pay Commission |
| 1 | | 01.04.1997 |
| 2 | Joseph & Marry public School | 01.04.1997 |
| 3 | | 01.12.1997 |
| 4 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 5 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 6 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 7 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 8 | | 01.04.1999 |
| 9 | | 01.01.2000 |
| 10 | | 01.06.2003 |
| 11 | | 01.03.1998 |
| 12 | | 01.06.1998 |
| 13 | Arya Vidya Mandir, Pratap Nagar | 01.07.1998 |
| 14 | | 01.12.1997 |
| 15 | | 2000 |
| 16 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 17 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 18 | | 01.06.2003 |
| 19 | | 01.04.1997 |
| 20 | Joseph and | 01.04.1997 |
| 21 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 22 | | 01.01.1999 |
| 23 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 24 | | 01.03.1998 |
| 25 | Nav Bharti SSS, Shri Ngr. Colony | 01.06.1998 |
| 26 | Arya Vidya Mandir, Partap Nagar | 01.07.1998 |
| 27 | St. Parmanand Public School | 01.01.1997 |
| 28 | Mata Ram Rakhi Sanatan Dharma Saraswati Bal Mandir | 01.01.1998 |
| 29 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 30 | | 01.03.2001 |
| 31 | St. Parmanand Public School | 01.04.1997 |
| 32 | | 01.09.2009 |
| 33 | Mata Ramrakhi Sanatan Dharam Saraswati Bal Mandir | 01.01.1998 |
| 34 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 35 | | 15.12.1997 |
| 36 | Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak, Shastri Sadan, Sector-3, R.K. Puram | 01.07.1997 |
| 37 | | April 1997 |
| 38 | Hill Grow Public School, S.J. Enclave | 01.07.1997 |
| 39 | | 01.12.1997 |
| 40 | | 01.10.1997 |
| 41 | | 30.09.1997 |
| 42 | Sanjay Bal Vidyalaya, Sector-VII, R.K. Puram | 01.12.1997 |
| 43 | | 09.12.1997 |
| 44 | | 01.12.1997 |
| 45 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 46 | DPS Sector 12, R K Puram | 31.01.1988 |
| 47 | | 01.06.1998 |
| 48 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 49 | | 28.02.1998 |
| 50 | | 01.01.2004 |
| 51 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 52 | | December 1997 |
| 53 | Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak, Shastri Sadan, Sector-III, R.K. Puram | 01.07.1997 |
| 54 | DPS Sector 12, R.K. Puram | 31.01.1998 |
| 55 | | April 1997 |
| 56 | | June 1998 |
| 57 | Hill Grow Public School, S.J. Enclave | 01.07.1997 |
| 58 | | 01.121997 |
| 59 | St. Mary’s School, S.J. Enclave | 01.04.1998 |
| 60 | | 28.02.1998 |
| 61 | | 01.10.1997 |
| 62 | | 01.01.2004 |
| 63 | | 30.09.1997 |
| 64 | Sanjay Bal Vidyalaya Sec. VII R.K.P. | 01.12.1997 |
| 65 | | 09.12.1997 |
| 66 | | 01.12.1997 |
| 67 | Convent of St. Marks School, Mahaveer Enclave, Bengali Colony | 26.10.1996 |
| 68 | | 01.08.1997 |
| 69 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 70 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 71 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 72 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 73 | Shiv vani | 01.02.1998 |
| 74 | | 01.09.1998 |
| 75 | | 01.09.1998 |
| 76 | | 01.12.1998 |
| 77 | Deep Parmarth model School, | 01.03.1999 |
| 78 | | 01.04.1999 |
| 79 | | 01.11.1999 |
| 80 | | 01.04.2001 |
| 81 | | 01.04.2001 |
| 82 | | 01.08.2001 |
| 83 | | 01.04.2002 |
| 84 | | 01.04.2004 |
| 85 | | 01.04.2004 |
| 86 | | 01.07.2004 |
| 87 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 88 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 89 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 90 | | 01.09.2005 |
| 91 | | 01.06.2006 |
| 92 | | 01.03.2007 |
| 93 | J M | 01.04.2007 |
| 94 | | 01.04.2007 |
| 95 | Triveni Bal Upwan, Madanpuri, | 01.09.2008 |
| 96 | | 01.09.2005 |
| 97 | Convent of St. Mark’s School, H-2/147, Mahavir Enclave, Bengali Colony, | 26.10.1996 |
| 98 | | 01.03.1999 |
| 99 | | 01.09.1998 |
| 100 | | 01.08.1997 |
| 101 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 102 | | 01.04.2007 |
| 103 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 104 | | 01.09.1998 |
| 105 | Karan Deep public School, Vill Bharthal, P. O. Bijwasan, N.D. | 01.04.1999 |
| 106 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 107 | | 01.07.2004 |
| 108 | | 01.04.2004 |
| 109 | | 01.04.2004 |
| 110 | | 01.04.2001 |
| 111 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 112 | | 01.11.1999 |
| 113 | | 01.04.2002 |
| 114 | | 01.03.2005 |
| 115 | Queen’s | 01.03.2007 |
| 116 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 117 | | 01.04.2006 |
| 118 | | 01.08.2001 |
| 119 | | 01.02.1998 |
| 120 | | 01.12.1998 |
| 121 | Triveni Bal Upvan, Rz-89, Gali NO. 11, | 01.09.2008 |
| 122 | | 01.04.2002 |
| 123 | | 01.01.2006 |
| 124 | | 01.04.2001 |
| 125 | | 01.04.2001 |
| 126 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 127 | | 01.04.1998 |
| 128 | | 01.05.2000 |
| 129 | | 01.11.1997 |
| 130 | | 31.03.1998 |
| 131 | | 01.10.1999 |
| 132 | Sumermal Jain public School, Janakpuri | 01.12.1997 |
| 133 | Blooming | 01.08.2005 |
| 134 | | 01.04.1999 |
| 135 | | 01.01.1998 |
| 136 | Shaheed B.S. Mem. | 01.07.2000 |
| 137 | | 01.12.1999 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)