Friday, 20 April 2012

Pindora Box of Fee Reimbursement aginst EWS admission

When we see the provisions of section 12(1) (c) of RTE act then the first impression comes about the extra burden on school as the revenue will be decreased by 25% and it looks the public schools as a victim of RTE Act 2009 but the information supplied under R.T.I. Act 2005 and DOE website reveals the fact that unaided recognized private schools in Delhi are beneficiary but not victim. I know the department and public school will not be agree hence we provide the evidence from their official website only. The link E.W.S. admission under link  provides information about actual admission under 25.01.2007 notification which was applicable in the session 2010-11 and Post RTE admission under RTE Act 2009 and it clearly indicates the factual position of schools. As for example if we take Tagore International School Id No 1720132 then the school admitted 20 students in session 2010-11 of compliance of contractual liability and 14 admission for compliance of R.T.E. Most of the schools are at similar footings and if a school even did not complied the contractual liability then whether the school is entitle for reimbursement or Recovery of money earned through non providing of share of the poor people of neighborhood.
Confused D.O.E. :- Department of Education Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi is looking confused on the re-reimbursement issue and that is due to their own casual approach. It is clearly evident that the DOE while dealing with one provision of act does not consider the other due to their mechanical approach and functioning under pressure from the UN-aided school lobby. second proviso of section 12 (2) of RTE Act mentions " whether such school is under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building,equipment, or other facilities either free of cost or at a concessional rate such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation. In Delhi 394 identified schools listed under link are obtained public land from land owing agencies and are under obligation to provide free ship to the students from E.W.S. category. There are another estimated 100 non-identified schools which also obtained land under same conditions. Allotment letters of land mentions in most of the cases that the school will admit 20 to 25 percent of children under E.W.S. category some of the allotment letter mentions free ship but it is left on govt. to decide the percentage but in some other approx 100 schools there are another 5% obligation over and above the 25% for E.W.S. Delhi Cabinet in 2006 decided to rationalize the obligation and it has been decided the obligation as 20% and DOE notified the same through notification dated 25.01.2007. All these exercise was a part of intervention by Hon'ble Delhi High court in a social Jurist PIL W.P.(c) 3156 and there was sanction from Hon'ble High Court. In 2010 the RTE Act came in operation and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi came with a new notification dated 07.01.2011 and in the introduction part cleverly inserted the words supresession of all the previous notification in this regard in verry mechnical manner which washed away all the exercises of last dacade. The unaided private school was benificiary of the above said supresession and under their pressure this supresession has been inserted and they can't claim for revival of one para of notification while enjoying benifit of supresession of another para. If they have taken care at that time to supresession upto the extent the new notification was dealing then the confusion and uncertainty they are facing can be avoided but no one in department had vision to see the present situation. We have alredy challenged the above mentioned supersession and optimistic to get an order in our favor from Hon'ble High Court this month only.
    This is also verry important to discuss whether school is entitled for reimbrsement if they have not admitted the requisite percentage of children. The affidavit filed by DOE is mentioning 765 schools against whom the show-cause notice has been issued. There are a large no of schools who violated the provisions but show cause has not been issued and an RTI reply mentions that more then 90% schools has not admitted the requisite percentage then it is beyond our understanding that if they have not admitted the requisite percentage then how they are entitled for reimbursement. The allotment letter mentions specific percentage of admission not only at entry level. If a school admitted total 100 students at entry point and another 200 students in classes other then entry level class then the total admission is 300 in the school. If the school has admitted 25 students at entry point only then then the percentage for the purpose of allotment letter is 8.33%  not 25% as the school is claiming. The financial burden is also an artificial projection as the school which admits 10 students has an average of minimum 1500 students in the school and 25 student is bare 1.66 percent and that also when school honestly admit the above mentioned 25 students.
Impact of reimbursement on fee paying parents:- This E.W.S. admission can not create any burden on the fee paying parents and they must understand that if a govt. school can run on par child expenditure of 1190 then why not a public school. we must be clear that the high number of students in class room can't be linked as the reason is not the less no of teachers but working of less no of teachers. In Delhi if we see the per teacher student then in govt. school also it is smiler to private school. The parents has another protection that the expenditure of one child can't be transferred on another and the same has been ruled by Hon'ble supreme court in T.M.A. Pai and several other cases hence the fee increase has nothing to do with E.W.S. admission but it is related with the greed of unaided public school. As per deduction of reimbursement on the ground of allotment letter which is primarily a responsibility of parent society is concerned some parents are in general support of our contention but if a few parents have sympathy with the school and thinking that it can be justified to increase then we must understand that the liability was existing from the day one school has started and if the amount saved by depriving poor was used to subsidized the fee paying parent then also who can justify such subsidy at the cost of deprivation of children from underprivileged group of society. hence this fixation of 1190 in Delhi should be taken by the fee paying parents also in positive manner and they should demand their fee fixation at the same rate.
     We have sympathy with some small schools not running at public land and not getting reimbursement at the time. They must think that several federations who is making unnecessary complication in reimbursement as they are actually related with unaided private schools at public land and well aware with the fact that they have not justified claim and by crating cloud of confusion  can continue deprivation of E.W.S. admission for some more time is against their interest. The DOE should also consider the interst of small schools running at public land and victim of this reimbursement fight.

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.
Mob- 8825456565


Wednesday, 18 April 2012

EWS students are entitled for free books and uniforms

Rule 8(1) of Delhi RTE Rule categorically mentions that A child attending a school of the Government or local authority referred to in sub clause (1) of clause (n) of section 2, a child attending a school referred to in sub-clause(ii) of clause (n) of section 2 in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12 and a child attending a school referred to in sub-clause (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12 shall be entitled to free text books, writing material and uniform.
 Provided that a child with disabilities shall also be provided free special learning and support material.
Explanation:- ----------------- the responsibility of providing the free entitlement shall be of the school referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 and of sub- section (iii) and *iv) of clause (n) of section 2 respectively.
It is important to mention here that the unaided recognized private schools are referred in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 respectively. students must approach the school authority at first for all these entitlement and in the case of refusal they should contact the area deputy director with an application in this regard. We request the parents to inform us in the case of inaction by officers of DOE as this is their official duty to ensure compliance of RTE Act and Rules. It is important to mention here that any segregation of children admitted under EWS/Disadvantage Group category is strictly prohibited under Rule 8(4) of Delhi RTE Rule as well as RTE Act 2009. If you have any complaint of this kind you may contact us at our helpline numbers.

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.                                                                    Mr. Ashok Agarwal Adv.
8826456565                                                                                              9811101923

Sunday, 15 April 2012

Delhi High Court orders in W.P(C) No 3715 of 2011 for EWS admission in all classes

  Present: Mr.Ashok Agarwal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
  Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Addl.Standing Counsel for Govt. of
  NCT of Delhi for R-3 and R-4.
  Mr.Abhir Dutt, Advocate for Mr.Rajiv Bansal, counsel
  for R-5.
   WP (C) No.3715/2011 and CM No.7777/2011
  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines the relief
  to quashing of the subsequent notification dated 07.01.2011 if it is read as
  superseding the earlier notification dated 25.01.2007. It is submitted that
  only if the petitioner succeeds in this relief, the natural sequitor would
  follow, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the writ petition.
  Notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued returnable on
  26.07.2011. Learned counsel for R-3 to R-5 accept notice. Learned counsel for
  the petitioner at this stage states that R-1 and R-2 need not be served in view
  of the confined relief.
  Counter affidavit, if any, be filed by R-3 to R-5 on or before
  08.07.2011. Rejoinder thereto, as prayed for, be filed within one week
   MAY 27, 2011 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

  W.P.(C) 3715/2011 and CM Nos.7777/2011 and 9888/2011
  ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner
  Through: Mr.Ashok Agarwal, Ms.Kusum Sharma and
  Mr.Khagesh Jha, Advocates.
  BALBHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL and ORS. ..... Respondent
  Through: Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Addl.Standing Counsel for
  Govt. of NCT of Delhi for R-3 and R-4.
  Mr.Subrat Deb, Advocate for R-5/DDA.
   O R D E R
  It is 1.05 P.M.
  It is not possible to conclude hearing in 10 minutes.
  Learned counsel for the petitioner states they are in a part-heard
  matter in the post lunch session.
  List on 14.03.2012.
  JANUARY 11, 2012/dm

  W.P.(C) 3715/2011
  ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner
  Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Mr. Khagesh
  Jha, Advocates
  BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Addl. Standing Counsel,
  GNCTD with Mr. Abhijeet Kakoti and Md. Arlam
  Khan, Advocates for R-3 and R-4
  Mr. Subrat Deb, Advocate for R-5/DDA
   O R D E R
  Rule DB.
  Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 accept notice.
  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 need not to be served in view of the order
  dated 27.05.2011.
  At request of learned counsel for parties, the petition is taken up
  for final disposal.
  During the course of the hearing, it has emerged that a challenge
  has been laid to the various provisions of the Right of Children to Free
  and Compulsory
  W.P.(C) 3715/2011 Page 1 of 2
  Education Act, 2009 before the Hon?ble Supreme court. We are informed
  that the judgment was reserved in August, 2011. In our considered view,
  the judgment would have a direct impact on the controversy before us.
  We thus consider it appropriate to have the benefit of the judgment
  of the Supreme Court to take a view in this matter.
  List for directions on 27.04.2012.
  CM Nos.7777/2011 (for directions) and 9888/2011 (stay)
  The petitioner by the interim measure seeks suspension of the
  notification issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 07.01.2011 and
  revival of the notification dated 25.01.2007 which stands superseded vide
  the notification dated 07.01.2011. This certainly cannot be done by an
  interim measure.
  Thus no interim directions can be passed in this matter.
  The applications stand disposed of.
  MARCH 14, 2012

Delhi High court orders in W.P. 8434 of 2011 [ irregularity in EWS admission]



  W.P.(C) 8434/2011

  SOCIAL JURIST ..... Petitioner

  Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Ms. Kusum Sharma, Adv.


  GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI . .... Respondent

  Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for GNCTD.

  Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for UOI.




   O R D E R


  Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate states that affidavit shall be filed
  in the course of the day. Advance copy of the same has been handed over
  to the counsel for the petitioner who wants to file the rejoinder. The
  same be filed within one week.

  List on 29th February, 2012.

  CM No.1168/2012 and 1122/2012 (for direction).


  Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate accepts notice. Reply be filed within
  two weeks.

  File of W.P.(C) No. 40/2012 shall be sent to the Court on the next
  date of hearing.



  JANUARY 25, 2012/pp..


  W.P.(C) 8434/2011, CM No.1168/2012 and 1122/2012 (for direction).

  SOCIAL JURIST ..... Petitioner

  Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Ms. Kusum Sharma, Advs.


  GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

  Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advs. for GNCTD.




   O R D E R


  1. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that
  District Admission Monitoring Committee has been constituted in each
  district in accordance with the provisions of the Notification dated 7th
  January, 2011 which has been issued for ensuring admission of 25%
  students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the Society.

  2. It is further stated that number of complaints were received and
  disposed of by the respective District Admission Monitoring Committees
  and show cause notices were issued to the schools which were not giving

  admission against EWS seats. The affidavit however lacks particulars and does not give information as to which are the erring schools and what
  kind of action is taken against those schools. This information shall be
  supplied within four weeks.

  3. Mr. Ashok Agarwal has handed over list of 10 schools which are not
  complying with the aforesaid provision. The respondent shall also take
  steps in this regard.

  4. List on 18th April, 2012.



  FEBRUARY 29, 2012

Impact of Supreme Court Judgement on Delhi Minority Unaided Private Recognized Schools.

Hon'ble supreme court, in a recent judgement while upholding the RTE Act 2009 for unrecognized non-minority school exempted the Minority schools from the preview of RTE Act 2009 as the court found that the 2009 act passed the test of constitutional validity regarding article 19 (1) (g) but it failed the test for article 30 of constitution. If we see the impact of this judgement on minority schools in Delhi then it becomes evident that the impact is negligible in the matter of EWS/Disadvantge Admission mentioned in section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act as Most of the schools are running from public land and under obligation to provide a specific percentage of admission to EWS students, vary from 20 to 30 percent towards their contractual liability. In delhi there are around 50 unaided minority schools( Religious and linguistic both) including Christian Minority and Sikh Minority School out of which around 40 which includes all big schools are running from public land. A very few schools which includes st xaviers Rohini and Rosary Public School is not at public land but other schools are very small schools and running from Gurudwaras which are not listed at official website of DOE as a school obliged for EWS admission.. Complete list of Identified schools are available under link- . All the schools in the list whether minority or non minority are under contractual liability to admit the students from EWS category and DOE has issued a circuler on 25.01.2007 in complience of  Dirction from Hon'ble Delhi High court in a social Jurist PIL W.P(C) 3156 of 2002. The DOE circuler Dated 25,01.2007 is available under link- . Para 3 of circular mentions 20% seats for admission under EWS in all class including entry level class where these schools were admitting students under RTE Act 2009. DOE issued a circular dated 07.01.2011 under various provisions of RTE Act 2009 which supreseeded the notification dated 25.01.2007 but now after exemption from RTE the 2011 circular became redundant hence 2007 circular has been activated automatically. It is important to mention here that Hon'ble delhi high court passed an interim order dated 30.05.2007 where the 2007 circular was stayed for such school which filed affidavit to admit 15% students udner EWS. For other schools which has not filed affidavit the notification was functional up to extent of 20% admission under EWS freeship category.
    Prima facie it looks that 20% seat is less then 25% but we must remember that 20% in all classes are almost twice of 25% in entry level class if we see the number of seats. We can verify the data availbale at official website where schools as per 2007 circuler admitting students in session 2010-11 and as per RTE in 2011-12 session. As for example a minority school is east Delhi namely guru harkrishan public school admitted 26 students in session 2010-11 as per 2007 circular while admitting only 10% as another 5% was for wards of employees of the teaching and non teaching staff of the school . list is under link and the same school admitted only 12 students during session 2011-12. The list is available under link other minority schools are also at the same footings and it can be safely stated that total admission for EWS will be increased in these schools for compliance of allotment letter instead of admitting students under section 12(1) (c) of RTE Act.

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.
Mob- 8826456565