Thursday, December 11, 2014

‘25 फीसद सीटें सामान्य वर्ग के लिए हों आरक्षित’

दोनों समितियों द्वारा दिए गए सुझाव छात्रों के हित में नहीं हैं। ये शिक्षा के व्यवसायीकरण को बढ़ावा देने वाले हैं। नए नियम बनाने के संबंध में हमने उपराज्यपाल को पत्र भी लिखा है।
-अशोक अग्रवाल, अध्यक्ष, ऑल इंडिया पैरेंट्स एसोसिएशन
Dainik Jagran, 12.12.2014, Page-2

Punjab Kesri Delhi, 12.12.2014, Page-8


AMEND DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT TO PROHIBIT SCREENING PROCEDURE IN NURSERY ADMISSIONS - AIPA WRITES TO DELHI LT. GOVERNOR SHRI NAJEEB JUNG


To
Hon’ble Shri Najeeb Jung
Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Raj Niwas Marg
New Delhi -110054
December 11, 2014

Sub: Request to immediately bring amendment in Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to protect the rights of children to equal treatment in the matter of nursery admission in unaided recognized private schools

Sir,

Every child has a fundamental right to equal treatment in the matter of admission to nursery class in an unaided recognized private school, which in essence has been incorporated in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Educaiton Act, 2009. However, the Delhi High Court learned single Judge Judgment dated 28.11.2014 in WP(C) 202/2014 and WP(C) 177/2014 has taken away this right. Unfortunately, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide its Order dated 10.12.2014 in LPA Nos. 769 & 781/2014 has declined to stay this Judgment, leaving hapless children and parents at the mercy of the private schools. This needs to be addressed at your end without loss of any further time to protect the rights of the children particularly their Right to Education.

The learned single Judge in its judgment has held in Para 117 of its judgment which is reproduced as under:-

“117. Also, the restrictions cannot be imposed by way of office orders and that too, without any authority of law. In State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 545 the Supreme Court has held that the restriction under clause 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution can be imposed only by way of a law enacted by a Legislature and not by issuing a circular or a policy decision. Admittedly, no law or restriction has, in the present instance, been placed upon the petitioners by virtue of Article 21-A and Article 15(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Government cannot impose a strait jacket formula of admission upon the schools under the guise of reasonable restriction and that too, without any authority of law.”

The Divisions Bench refusal to grant a stay of the learned Single Judge Judgment dated 28.11.2014 shall have a bearing upon the upcoming nursery admission process by giving a free hand to the schools to pick and choose between tiny tots on their own whims and fancies. As a matter of routine, the admission process starts in the month of December itself every year. We are expecting the Director of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi to file appeal in Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Division Bench Order dated 10.12.2014 declining stay of the learned single Judge Judgment.

However, to put the controversy at rest and resolve the matter for good, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi should immediately bring appropriate amendments in Delhi School Act, 1973. Needless to say that the desired amendments should be on the lines of Section 13 read with Section 2(o) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which prohibits ‘screening procedure’ in the matter of admission of children in the age group 6 to 14 years. Any delay in this direction would only perpetuate discrimination, arbitrariness and commercialization in education.

Section 13 and 2(o) of RTE Act, 2009 are reproduced as under:-

“13. No capitation fee and screening procedure for admission
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 provisions of sub-section(1)-
a) receives capitation fee, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten times the capitation free charged;
b) subjects a child to screening procedure shall be punishable with fine which may extent twenty-five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contraventions.”
“2. (o) “screening procedure” means the method of selection for admission of a  child, in preference over another, other than a random method;”

We, therefore, earnestly appeal to you to bring necessary amendment in Delhi School Education Act, 1973 in order to make Section 13 of RTE Act, 2009 meaningful. Needless to say, it would be most appropriate to bring the said amendment in the ongoing Parliamentary Session in view of the urgency to address the nursery admissions for the upcoming academic session 2015-16.

With regards

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
National President, AIPA
M. 9811101923





Sunday, December 7, 2014

दस लाख से अधिक का खर्च नहीं देगी ईएसआई

हिन्दुतान - 08 Dec 2014- Page -6

कलीम की और से अधिवक्ता अशोक अग्रवाल ने बच्चे की लीवर प्रत्यारोपण के लिए ईएसआई को 14 लाख रुपये जारी करने का आदेश देने की मांग की है, उन्होंने कहा है की याचिकाकर्ता का कर्मचारी राज्य बिमा निगम से स्वास्थ बीमा है और इसके बदले वह हर माह तय रकम का भुगतान भी कर रहा है, अधिवक्ता अशोक अग्रवाल ने बीमा धारक और उनके आश्रितों के इलाज़ की सीमा तय किये जाने को मनमाना और असवेधानिक बताते हुए इसे रद्द करने की मांग की है

दो चोटी बांधने पर छात्र को थप्पड़ मारे, परिजन कोट पहुंचे

हिन्दुतान - 07 Dec 2014- Page -2

आथिक रूप से कमजोर वग की छात्र पूजा की तरफ से उनके अधिवक्ता अशोक अग्रवाल ने हाईकोट में याचिका दायर की है। याचिका में कहा गया है कि पूवी दिल्ली के पटपड़गंज स्थित मायो इंटरनेशनल स्कूल की शिक्षिका डॉली ने बगैर किसी पुख्ता वजह छात्र बेइज्जत की। छात्र ने यह भी इल्जाम लगाया है कि शिक्षिका ने अन्य छात्रों के साथ मिलकर उसका मजाक भी बनाया। शिक्षिका के इस रवैये की वजह से कक्षा में उसकी स्थिति हास्यापद बन गई। जबकि उसका कसूर सिफ इतना था कि वह दो चोटी बांधकर स्कूल पहुंची थी। याचिका में यह भी कहा गया है कि बच्ची ने घर पहुंचकर पूरा घटनाक्रम अपनी मां को बताया। मां ने शिक्षिका के इस व्यवहार पर आपत्ति जताई तो स्कूल प्रबंधन ने बच्ची को अनिश्चित्तकाल के निलंबित कर दिया। बच्ची के परिजनों ने स्कूल प्रशासन से निजी तौर पर मिलकर कई बार निलंबन को रद्द करने का आग्रह किया। लेकिन स्कूल प्रशासन ने उनकी एक नहीं सुनी। स्कूल के रवैये से तंग आकर उन्होंने दिल्ली हाईकोट का रुख किया है। अधिवक्ता अग्रवाल का कहना है कि स्कूल का यह कदम शिक्षा का अधिकार कानून 2009 का स्पष्ट उल्लंघन है। छात्र को स्कूल से निलंबित करना न केवल कानून विरुद्ध है, बल्कि बाल अधिकार व शिक्षा के अधिकार का उल्लंघन भी है। इस मामले में माना जा रहा है कि आथिक रूप से कमजोर वग की छात्र के साथ यह पक्षपाती रवैया अपनाया गया है। बताया जाता है कि इससे पहले छात्र के परिजनों ने स्थानीय थाना पुलिस को भी इस बाबत शिकायत की थी। लेकिन पुलिस ने इस पर कोई कारवाई नहीं की। पुलिस द्वारा नहीं सुने जाने पर उन्हें हाईकोट में याचिका दाखिल करनी पड़ी है।

Saturday, December 6, 2014

SLAPPED AND SUSPENDED BY MAYO INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, CLASS V EWS GIRL MOVES DELHI HIGH COURT—HEARING LIKELY ON MONDAY



Baby Pooja, Class V EWS student who was beaten up by a teacher of Mayo International School, Patparganj for the frivolous reason of having come to school with two pony-tails and when her mother objected to the same, was suspended from school sine die, has today filed a petition in Delhi High Court through Advocate Ashok Agarwal, against the injustice meted out to her by the said school. 
 
Despite persistent requests and persuasion, the school has refused to revoke the suspension. 

On 21.11.2014, baby Pooja had been slapped by her teacher Ms. Dolly and humiliated in front of the entire class for the amusingly absurd reason that she had come to the school with two pony-tails. The next day Pooja’s mother Mamta had met the errant teacher and complained that the child ought not to have been beaten up and the teacher instead should have sent a note in the child’s diary. The teacher had got furious over this and retorted that the parent ought not to make trivial complaints as the school had been ‘obliging’ them as the student was studying under EWS category. At the end of the same day, student had been handed over a suspension-letter by the school, thereby suspending the child from the school till further orders over the alleged ground of her parents having “misbehaved with the school staff and used indecent language for her.”
The petition states, “The action of suspending the petitioner-student on the part of the school is absolutely illegal, grossly illogical and violative of the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009. It is also discriminatory against the EWS student and places the EWS child at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the general students. Inflicting corporal punishment upon child is itself illegal and violative of the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009.” 

The petition is likely to come up for hearing on Monday 08.12.2014.

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M: 9811101923
06.12.2014