ALL INDIA PARENTS ASSOCIATION
To
The
Additional Director of Education (Act-I)
Government
of NCT of Delhi
Old
Secretariat Building
Civil
Lines, Delhi-54
June 13, 2015
Re:
Public Circular dated 11.06.2015
Subject: Comments upon
the draft amendments to the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973
Dear Sir/Madam
The proposed Delhi
School Education (Amendment) Rules 2015 are an improvement over the previous
draft in so far as the new Rule 145 clearly empowers and mandates the Director
to regulate admission in private unaided schools and uses the term “fair” along
with “transparent”. However, it is still very vague and amenable to
misinterpretations and abuse. I therefore propose that this Rule should
prohibit screening at entry level on the lines of Section 13 of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which would leave no scope
for ambiguity and settle the controversy for good. Also, there would not be
much left to executive instructions if the Rule itself is worded clearly and
explicitly. There is no need for further delegation of power if the Rule can
itself be made specific. This Amendment would also be in consonance with the
observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.8533/2010 titled
Social Jurist vs. GNCTD & ors.
As far as the Delhi
School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015 is concerned, it fails to cater to the mischief of exorbitant
and unjustified fee-hike for reasons that I have already communicated to the Government
vide my letter dated 01.06.2015. The said reasons are reproduced as under:
Firstly, it presupposes
that fee-hike by the private schools is per-se legal and valid, unless the same
is challenged through a complaint and is set aside by the committee. If we look
at the existing Acts on private unaided school-fee regulation, particularly the
Tamil Nadu (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009, there is a stipulation
of prior approval by the Committee before fee-hike and the said hiked fee, once
approved, cannot be further hiked upto three years. While here, this Bill has
put the entire burden upon the complainant. It is expected that the Delhi’s Act
should be advancement over Tamil Nadu Act and should surpass the benchmark set
by Tamil Nadu, but this Bill falls way short of even what Tamil Nadu has
already achieved.
Secondly, this Bill
suffers from various practical anomalies. The burden has been cast upon the
aggrieved parent to move in complaint. This onerous task would make the parent,
and ultimately the child, amenable to be subjected to victimization. Further,
once a complaint is made, no time-limit has been stipulated for disposal of the
same by the committee, making it liable to be reduced to futility by sheer
lapse of time. Even after a complaint has been decided, there is enough room for
delay as the school can file objections, and even after consideration of the
same and final decision by the committee, there is a provision of appeal to the
Director, for disposal of which, no time-limit has been stipulated. The school
shall thus continue to enjoy its free hand at least throughout the process
which has enough scope for inordinate delays. The committee itself is a rather
weak one compared to the Tamil Nadu model where a retired judge of the High
Court heads the Committee.
It is needless to
mention here that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 12.08.2011
in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh & ors. vs. GNCTD & ors. [W.P. (C)
No.7777/2009] had constituted Justice Anil Dev Singh Committee to look into the
accounts of each school and find out whether the fee-hike by private unaided
schools on the pretext of 6th Central Pay Commission was justified.
The High Court had further directed that if the fee-hike was found to be
unjustified, it would be refunded by the school to parents along with 9%
interest. Justice Anil Dev Singh Committee has so far indicted more than 450
schools and the refundable amounts cumulatively come to more than Rs.250
crores. However, till date, not a single school has refunded the due amounts to
the parents.
Even in 1997, when the parents
had approached High Court against fee-hike on the pretext of implementation of
5th CPC, the High Court vide an interim Order had permitted the
schools to increase fee by upto 40%, resulting in recovery of over Rs.400 crores
from the parents of Delhi, which was to be subject to the findings of Justice
Santosh Duggal Committee and liable to be refunded if found unjustified.
However, the working of the Committee was deliberately stifled by the
Directorate of Education and the private schools, with the result that till date
no amount has been refunded to the hapless parents. Thus, it is our experience
that once a school charges fee from the parents, it becomes next to impossible
to get it refunded.
It must also be borne
in mind that monitoring and regulation of fee-hike is only one aspect of
checking commercialization of education in private schools. In order to effectively
check commercialization as a whole, it is necessary that the parents should
have an effective say in the Managing Committee of private unaided schools. The
RTE Act, 2009 provides for at least 75% representation of parents in the
School-Management Committees of schools other than private unaided schools. However,
in private unaided schools, there is only one parent-representative in the Managing
Committee, who is often a crony of the Management.
Since education is a
charitable activity and profiteering is impermissible in education, and
moreover, since it is the parents’ money which runs the school and they are
prime stakeholders in the functioning of the school, including its financial
aspects, the parents in private unaided schools deserve a minimum 50% representation
in the Managing Committee. This would not only check commercialization in education
but also enhance the overall quality of education in private schools. Thus,
Rule 59 of the Delhi School Education Rules also needs to be amended to provide
for at least 50% representation of parents in the Managing Committee in order
to ensure effective check upon fee-hike and commercialization of education by
private unaided schools.
The Bill needs to be
thoroughly reworked in the light of the above. However, I personally feel that it
would be a rather better option to enact an independent legislation on
fee–regulation on the lines of Tamil Nadu, even more robust and effective than
Tamil Nadu.
With regards
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
National President, AIPA
M: 9811101923
