SOCIAL JURIST
A Civil Rights Group
To,
Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely,
Hon’ble Education Minister,
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi – 110002
A Civil Rights Group
To,
Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely,
Hon’ble Education Minister,
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi – 110002
July 19, 2010
Sub: G.D. Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, expels Class VIII EWS student Master Vinit Kumar on July 12, 2010 – Tragic tale of a humble Postman
Sir,
We bring to your kind notice that Shri Satya Pal r/o of Qtr. No. 429, Sector 6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 (M-09868832110) has approached us with a written complaint dated 15 July 2010 inter alia stating that he is a lowly paid postman of Vasant Kunj area and belongs to SC category. His son Vinit Kumar got admission in class IV under EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota in the year 2006 in G.D. Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. At the time of admission his income (salary) from all sources was Rs.6955/- per month (within the EWS limit of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum). His son in his earlier school was studying in class V, but in G.D. Goenka Public School he was admitted to class IV, mainly due to medium of education, syllabus and standard in various activities. A loss of one year was accepted by him because the school authorities admitted his son to such a prestigious institution and allowed free education and other facilities. Seeing his son getting good education and grow under the able guidance of the school staff, he was very happy and confident that he would do well and come up in life.
He also stated that his happiness was short lived as due to the steep rise in cost of living and then with the VI pay commission recommendations the salaries were revised. Although he still remains a humble postman, his pay crossed the EWS limit of Rs.1, 00,000/- per annum. The school authorities on getting the yearly pay certificate have raised and forwarded the Quarterly School Charges of Rs. 23,000/- from April 01, 2010, as the school authorities decided that the child is no longer eligible for free education under EWS and has to pay full fee at par with other students.
He further stated that the school authorities had called him to the school a couple of times and asked him to pay up the full school fee or withdraw the child from the school rolls. He pleaded with the school authorities that though after the pay commission recommendations and with his revised salary he is no longer within the EWS limit but even with this revised salary, he is unable to pay such huge fees of Rs. 23,000/- every quarter, over and above other expenses on education of the child. He also submitted in writing that with his meager salary and high cost of living, he is unable to pay full fees. In his desperation to ensure continuance of good education for his son, he even offered to pay fees within the means of a humble SC category Postman if concession is given. . He pleaded with the school authorities to allow the child to continue studying and finish his schooling from this school to which he had got admission under EWS quota. For the school to expel the child simply because his father was too poor to pay the exorbitant fees, would be humiliating and hurtful to the child After securing admission in 2006, both father and son, had rightly believed that by working hard, the child would pass out from a good school with greatly enhanced opportunities in life. For their dreams to be so crushed would be traumatic to the child, and completely antithetical to the spirit of the clause that enabled the poor to receive admission and to study in private schools that received land at concessional rates through the implementation of a land policy designed to serve a larger social purpose related to the “The adoption of the concept of a welfare state under the Constitution, the initiation of national economic planning, and the acceptance by the Parliament of a socialist pattern of society as the national objective,” (– A Note on Urban land Policy. TPO, 1961, pg. 3)
It may be well to remember that it was on the basis of the spirit of the Urban Land Policy after independence and of the Master Plan of 1962, both of which had chapters titled ‘social objectives of land policy’; that this school got the land on which it stands today in order to serve a larger social purpose. By the same egalitarian spirit, the child belonging to weaker sections became entitled to be admitted to the school and to receive free education in all the classes run by the school. Given this common root, when the DDA has not forced this school to leave its land simply because the value of land has risen exponentially; then is it not illogical and a mockery of social justice that this school, which is itself a recipient of land given as ‘nazul’, can arrogantly and cruelly expel a child simply because the father’s income has risen since the time the child was given admission?
Not only was this child expelled from the school for unjustifiable economic reasons, but he was further subjected to public humiliation and trauma. The Child’s father has further stated that on Monday, 12th July 2010, during school hours his son was lifted from the class and dropped at home without giving any reasons for the sudden decision of the school authorities. This caused unaccountable embarrassment and loss of face to the child at an age when they are most sensitive to being insulted or shamed in front of their peers- why- because he was poor. It was not as if the father had money and was unwilling to pay. He knew he was poor, and he also knew he was in this school, simply because of a right created by a humanitarian Constitution and egalitarian statutory instruments. Although he may not have understood these terms, he at least had the dignity that came from being the subject of a right. But even this cloak of dignity was whisked away by the school that day leaving him feeling degraded and small before his peers in the class.
The Honorable Minister is no doubt keenly aware that that the right to life was expanded to include the right to education so as to enable to the individual to live a life of dignity. When that dignity which should be given by education is instead taken away by the very institution, that ironically was created and endowed with land simply in order that may give education, then there can be no greater travesty of justice.
The trauma of the child did not end there. When the Child’s father immediately rushed to the school, the transfer certificate (TC) of the child was handed over to him. He was shell shocked and went completely blank and did not know what to say or do but only curse him for the lifetime opportunity his son has got and lost it too for no fault of his. He has then tried all his meager resources to do some thing for his son but failed to get any help from any individual or agency. He has been to various schools around to get admission but all the schools have no vacancy for class VIII in the middle of session. The child is very disturbed but there seems to be no solution to the problem in hand.
The child’s father has finally approached us with a ray of hope because he has heard that we have worked to get justice for many helpless persons like him.
The above said heartrending tale of a humble Postman reveals that there is something wrong with the existing provisions relating to EWS admissions in unaided private schools.
It is submitted that the provisions of Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 to the extent it provides (Clause 4) that for continuation of free seat in the school, the annual income of the parents should not exceed one lakh rupees is totally arbitrary, contrary to the object underlying therein, against public interest and opposed to public policy. It is submitted that once a child is admitted in an unaided private school situated on a public land having been allotted to it on concession rates, it would be totally unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, against public interest, opposed to public policy, anti-child interest, contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, contrary to the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, violative of 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 to permit a school to remove a child from the school merely because the income of the parents rises to exceed the limit prescribed. Such a limit is understandable at the time of initial admission of a child in a school, but once a child is validly admitted, he/she has every right to continue in school and complete the education till the last class in the educational institution on that land. Any attempt or action to remove such a child before completion of the end of all classes in the school is detrimental to the interest of such child. Therefore, the Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 needs to be amended forthwith to ensure that once a child is validly admitted in a school under EWS quota, such a child shall have a right to continue his/her education under EWS category in such school till completion of school education even if the income of the parents at any stage exceeds the limit. If it is not done, EWS admission quota would be nothing but a mockery of purpose of allotting free/on concessional rates land to schools for the education of the children belonging to the weaker sections of the society.
I would like to invite your kind attention to the provisions of Section 2(d) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, RTE Act, 2009), [n1] which defines “child belonging to disadvantaged group” means a child belonging to the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe, the socially and educationally backward class or such other group having disadvantage owing to social, cultural, economical, geographical, linguistic, gender or such other factor, as may be specified by the appropriate government, by notification. It is submitted that Master Vinit Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste category and therefore, he is entitled to have the benefit of this provision and the school is not justified in removing him from the school. It is submitted that the implication of the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009 is that Master Vinit Kumar would continue to study without payment of any fee at least up to class VIII.
I would also like to invite your kind attention to the provisions of Section 16 of the RTE Act, 2009 which provides, “No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education”. It is submitted that Master Vinit Kumar is a student of class VIII and the expulsion by the school is in violation of the said Section 16 of the RTE Act, 2009. However, by virtue of the fact that the school is on land which was received at concessional rates from the government, Master Vinit Kumar is additionally entitled to continue education in the school, and cannot be expelled even after class VIII on the grounds of non payment of fees.
As I was apprehending such problem, I had written a letter to you way back on 06.10.2008 inviting your attention to the fact that the revision of pay under 6th pay commission might be a boon for many but has created acute crisis for class IV govt. employees as the education of their children in unaided private schools against free seats was threatened. It was submitted that as per 6th pay commission recommendations as accepted by the govt., the gross salaries of class IV employees of the government and semi-government establishments have exceeded Rs. 1 lakh annually, thus making them cross the income eligibility criteria for freeship. The schools are taking undue advantage of the same by demanding payment of full fee from the month of October 2008 and threatening the parents to expel their wards from the school if fee and other charges are not paid. Such unreasonable demand of the schools is defeating the very purpose of the free seats provision by snatching the right of free education from the innocent children of those poor parents who inspite of increase in salary, are in no better economic condition and they still cannot afford the private school fee and other charges.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is requested that you may kindly intervene in this matter and direct the management of G.D.Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 to forthwith take back Master Vinit Kumar and allow him to continue his education in the school under EWS quota. It is also requested that necessary amendments in the Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 may be directed so to ensure that once a child is validly admitted in an unaided school situated on the public land under EWS quota, such child shall have a right to continue his/her education in such school till completion of school education under EWS quota notwithstanding the limit of income of his/her parents. It is further requested that pending amendments in the 2006 Orders, a general direction may be issued to all the 394 unaided private schools (schools on public land) to not to expel any student having been admitted under EWS quota on the ground that his/her parents income had exceeded the limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- annually.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09911101923
Sub: G.D. Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, expels Class VIII EWS student Master Vinit Kumar on July 12, 2010 – Tragic tale of a humble Postman
Sir,
We bring to your kind notice that Shri Satya Pal r/o of Qtr. No. 429, Sector 6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 (M-09868832110) has approached us with a written complaint dated 15 July 2010 inter alia stating that he is a lowly paid postman of Vasant Kunj area and belongs to SC category. His son Vinit Kumar got admission in class IV under EWS (Economically Weaker Section) quota in the year 2006 in G.D. Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. At the time of admission his income (salary) from all sources was Rs.6955/- per month (within the EWS limit of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum). His son in his earlier school was studying in class V, but in G.D. Goenka Public School he was admitted to class IV, mainly due to medium of education, syllabus and standard in various activities. A loss of one year was accepted by him because the school authorities admitted his son to such a prestigious institution and allowed free education and other facilities. Seeing his son getting good education and grow under the able guidance of the school staff, he was very happy and confident that he would do well and come up in life.
He also stated that his happiness was short lived as due to the steep rise in cost of living and then with the VI pay commission recommendations the salaries were revised. Although he still remains a humble postman, his pay crossed the EWS limit of Rs.1, 00,000/- per annum. The school authorities on getting the yearly pay certificate have raised and forwarded the Quarterly School Charges of Rs. 23,000/- from April 01, 2010, as the school authorities decided that the child is no longer eligible for free education under EWS and has to pay full fee at par with other students.
He further stated that the school authorities had called him to the school a couple of times and asked him to pay up the full school fee or withdraw the child from the school rolls. He pleaded with the school authorities that though after the pay commission recommendations and with his revised salary he is no longer within the EWS limit but even with this revised salary, he is unable to pay such huge fees of Rs. 23,000/- every quarter, over and above other expenses on education of the child. He also submitted in writing that with his meager salary and high cost of living, he is unable to pay full fees. In his desperation to ensure continuance of good education for his son, he even offered to pay fees within the means of a humble SC category Postman if concession is given. . He pleaded with the school authorities to allow the child to continue studying and finish his schooling from this school to which he had got admission under EWS quota. For the school to expel the child simply because his father was too poor to pay the exorbitant fees, would be humiliating and hurtful to the child After securing admission in 2006, both father and son, had rightly believed that by working hard, the child would pass out from a good school with greatly enhanced opportunities in life. For their dreams to be so crushed would be traumatic to the child, and completely antithetical to the spirit of the clause that enabled the poor to receive admission and to study in private schools that received land at concessional rates through the implementation of a land policy designed to serve a larger social purpose related to the “The adoption of the concept of a welfare state under the Constitution, the initiation of national economic planning, and the acceptance by the Parliament of a socialist pattern of society as the national objective,” (– A Note on Urban land Policy. TPO, 1961, pg. 3)
It may be well to remember that it was on the basis of the spirit of the Urban Land Policy after independence and of the Master Plan of 1962, both of which had chapters titled ‘social objectives of land policy’; that this school got the land on which it stands today in order to serve a larger social purpose. By the same egalitarian spirit, the child belonging to weaker sections became entitled to be admitted to the school and to receive free education in all the classes run by the school. Given this common root, when the DDA has not forced this school to leave its land simply because the value of land has risen exponentially; then is it not illogical and a mockery of social justice that this school, which is itself a recipient of land given as ‘nazul’, can arrogantly and cruelly expel a child simply because the father’s income has risen since the time the child was given admission?
Not only was this child expelled from the school for unjustifiable economic reasons, but he was further subjected to public humiliation and trauma. The Child’s father has further stated that on Monday, 12th July 2010, during school hours his son was lifted from the class and dropped at home without giving any reasons for the sudden decision of the school authorities. This caused unaccountable embarrassment and loss of face to the child at an age when they are most sensitive to being insulted or shamed in front of their peers- why- because he was poor. It was not as if the father had money and was unwilling to pay. He knew he was poor, and he also knew he was in this school, simply because of a right created by a humanitarian Constitution and egalitarian statutory instruments. Although he may not have understood these terms, he at least had the dignity that came from being the subject of a right. But even this cloak of dignity was whisked away by the school that day leaving him feeling degraded and small before his peers in the class.
The Honorable Minister is no doubt keenly aware that that the right to life was expanded to include the right to education so as to enable to the individual to live a life of dignity. When that dignity which should be given by education is instead taken away by the very institution, that ironically was created and endowed with land simply in order that may give education, then there can be no greater travesty of justice.
The trauma of the child did not end there. When the Child’s father immediately rushed to the school, the transfer certificate (TC) of the child was handed over to him. He was shell shocked and went completely blank and did not know what to say or do but only curse him for the lifetime opportunity his son has got and lost it too for no fault of his. He has then tried all his meager resources to do some thing for his son but failed to get any help from any individual or agency. He has been to various schools around to get admission but all the schools have no vacancy for class VIII in the middle of session. The child is very disturbed but there seems to be no solution to the problem in hand.
The child’s father has finally approached us with a ray of hope because he has heard that we have worked to get justice for many helpless persons like him.
The above said heartrending tale of a humble Postman reveals that there is something wrong with the existing provisions relating to EWS admissions in unaided private schools.
It is submitted that the provisions of Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 to the extent it provides (Clause 4) that for continuation of free seat in the school, the annual income of the parents should not exceed one lakh rupees is totally arbitrary, contrary to the object underlying therein, against public interest and opposed to public policy. It is submitted that once a child is admitted in an unaided private school situated on a public land having been allotted to it on concession rates, it would be totally unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, against public interest, opposed to public policy, anti-child interest, contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, contrary to the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, violative of 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 to permit a school to remove a child from the school merely because the income of the parents rises to exceed the limit prescribed. Such a limit is understandable at the time of initial admission of a child in a school, but once a child is validly admitted, he/she has every right to continue in school and complete the education till the last class in the educational institution on that land. Any attempt or action to remove such a child before completion of the end of all classes in the school is detrimental to the interest of such child. Therefore, the Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 needs to be amended forthwith to ensure that once a child is validly admitted in a school under EWS quota, such a child shall have a right to continue his/her education under EWS category in such school till completion of school education even if the income of the parents at any stage exceeds the limit. If it is not done, EWS admission quota would be nothing but a mockery of purpose of allotting free/on concessional rates land to schools for the education of the children belonging to the weaker sections of the society.
I would like to invite your kind attention to the provisions of Section 2(d) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, RTE Act, 2009), [n1] which defines “child belonging to disadvantaged group” means a child belonging to the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe, the socially and educationally backward class or such other group having disadvantage owing to social, cultural, economical, geographical, linguistic, gender or such other factor, as may be specified by the appropriate government, by notification. It is submitted that Master Vinit Kumar belongs to Scheduled Caste category and therefore, he is entitled to have the benefit of this provision and the school is not justified in removing him from the school. It is submitted that the implication of the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009 is that Master Vinit Kumar would continue to study without payment of any fee at least up to class VIII.
I would also like to invite your kind attention to the provisions of Section 16 of the RTE Act, 2009 which provides, “No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education”. It is submitted that Master Vinit Kumar is a student of class VIII and the expulsion by the school is in violation of the said Section 16 of the RTE Act, 2009. However, by virtue of the fact that the school is on land which was received at concessional rates from the government, Master Vinit Kumar is additionally entitled to continue education in the school, and cannot be expelled even after class VIII on the grounds of non payment of fees.
As I was apprehending such problem, I had written a letter to you way back on 06.10.2008 inviting your attention to the fact that the revision of pay under 6th pay commission might be a boon for many but has created acute crisis for class IV govt. employees as the education of their children in unaided private schools against free seats was threatened. It was submitted that as per 6th pay commission recommendations as accepted by the govt., the gross salaries of class IV employees of the government and semi-government establishments have exceeded Rs. 1 lakh annually, thus making them cross the income eligibility criteria for freeship. The schools are taking undue advantage of the same by demanding payment of full fee from the month of October 2008 and threatening the parents to expel their wards from the school if fee and other charges are not paid. Such unreasonable demand of the schools is defeating the very purpose of the free seats provision by snatching the right of free education from the innocent children of those poor parents who inspite of increase in salary, are in no better economic condition and they still cannot afford the private school fee and other charges.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is requested that you may kindly intervene in this matter and direct the management of G.D.Goenka Public School, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 to forthwith take back Master Vinit Kumar and allow him to continue his education in the school under EWS quota. It is also requested that necessary amendments in the Delhi School Education (Free seats for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 may be directed so to ensure that once a child is validly admitted in an unaided school situated on the public land under EWS quota, such child shall have a right to continue his/her education in such school till completion of school education under EWS quota notwithstanding the limit of income of his/her parents. It is further requested that pending amendments in the 2006 Orders, a general direction may be issued to all the 394 unaided private schools (schools on public land) to not to expel any student having been admitted under EWS quota on the ground that his/her parents income had exceeded the limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- annually.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist,
M-09911101923
1 comment:
Hi Mr Agarwal
Did you get any response from the Govt on this issue....?
Ketaki
Post a Comment