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 http://edustud.nic.in/mis/student/frmchildrenadmittedinFreeshipReportPublictLevel2011.aspx 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 linkhttp://www.edudel.nic.in/welcome_folder/424_dt_230509/Page.htm 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
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 linkhttp://www.edudel.nic.in/welcome_folder/424_dt_230509/Page.htm 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
