'Bal Sunwai' reported in Hindustan Times

Delhi worst in setting up school committees

Shreya Roy Chowdhury TNN 

New Delhi: AAP government may not have had to recruit a group of volunteers to inspect government schools if School Management Committees — statutory bodies mandated by the Right to Education Act 2009 —had been formed and running properly. But Delhi has the worst record of all states for establishing SMCs; the guidelines for setting these were issued on March 25, 2013, six days before the deadline for the implementation of the Act. 

    As per the data gathered through District Information System for Education and compiled into ‘DISE Flash Statistics 2012-13,’ (released in November 2013), only 6.93% of Delhi’s government and aided schools had constituted SMCs by September 2012. In West Bengal, which had the second worst record, 51.05% schools had SMCs and in Goa, 51.83%. Once the guidelines were issued, SMCs were hastily assembled by schools and in nearly all cases, selection wasn’t through election. 

    Activists say education minister Manish Sisodia’s willingness to involve the general public in school-governance — SMCs were meant to do just that — is a positive sign but a set of volunteers is not the solution. “A parallel system won’t work in the long term,” says Rajiv Kumar of NGO Pardarshita who’s also SMC-member of three schools. “The government should focus on a mechanism for time-bound redress of 
grievances, on ensuring SMCs are formed through transparent and fair elections and that they meet regularly.” 

    The importance accorded to SMCs is evident from the fact that RTE Act leaves the formulation of School Development Plans (SDP) to them. 

    Toward the end of 2013, Pardarshita had filed a batch of questions under the RTI Act asking 16 schools to furnish minutes of SMC meetings and SDPs. Only three had met more than once; only one had met thrice; none had aproper SDP in place. “Some sent us minutes of meetings as SDPs,” says Kumar, “Funds are supposed to be released on the basis of SDPs but no mechanism has been devised to take them into consideration.” 

    SMCs, activists feel, have been designed to fail. Their weaknesses have been built into their structures. They say principals, being chairpersons, have randomly selected members, preferring ‘netas’. Parents, says Kumar, don’t want to stick their necks out and speak up. 

    Moreover, says JOSH’s Saurabh Sharma, “members don’t know what to do”. “They have the power only to recommend and there’s no guarantee the department will take action. They may inspect and register complaint but most often it only gets forwarded,” says Sharma. 

    The SMCs have also been left oddly vulnerable. “They may complain about the quality of mid-day meal with no action being taken but the moment kids fall ill, they’ll be blamed,” says Sharma. Make the recommendations binding, suggest both Kumar and Sharma, that way even members feel their views matter. 

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN Composition of School Management Committee 
Proportionate representation to EWS/disadvantaged groups 
    One social worker involved in education and an elected representative of local authority 
    Principal will be member and ex-officio chairperson; vice-chairperson will be a parent 
    Three ‘special invitees’ – one teacher each from social science, science and maths 

FUNCTIONS Meet at least once in 2 months and prepare development plan Supervise working of school, utilization of grant Raise awareness in the community. 

Ensure teachers are not burdened with non-academic duties other than those specified in RTE 
Look into enrolment and continued attendance of neighbourhood kids 
Monitor maintenance of norms under RTE and alert government on violations 
Check identification and enrolment of disabled children. Make facilities available 
Identify children requiring special training and organize sessions.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Search&Source=Find&Key=CAP/2014/01/09/7/Ar00700%2Exml&CollName=TOI_DELHI_DAILY_2009&DOCID=1079261&Keyword=%28%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3ESMC%29&skin=TOINEW&AppName=1&PageLabel=7%20&ViewMode=HTML

Press release on 'bal sunwai' (public hearing by children) on Right to Education Act on 26 December 2013

More than 500 underprivileged children from various parts of the city gathered at D Block, New Seemapuri today to articulate their grievances against MCD schools and schools run by the Delhi government in a first-of-its-kind ‘bal sunwai’ (public hearing conducted by children). The theme of the sunwai was improper implementation of the Right to Education Act 2009 (RTE) that promises compulsory quality education to children between the age-group of 6-14 years that too free of cost, without any need of documents at the time admission along with provision of school uniform and  books from the side of the government.

In a thickly attended three-hour session, children brought out the difficulties faced by them at school and how helpless their situation gets when it comes to asking for their rights from authority figures, both in and outside school. Children came from places as far as Bawana, Kalkaji, Govindpuri, Kalyanpuri, Badli, Old Seemapuri, New Seemapuri, Rangpur Pahadi, Zafarabad and Sunder Nagari for the sunwai, many of them escorted by their parents.

Shahrukh, a resident of New Seemapuri, complained about how he became unconscious for a few hours and got temporary hearing loss when his teacher, who is a habituated to beating children with a stick, hit him for no reason. He is from the Government Boys Senior Secondary School, J & K Block, Dilshad Garden. Another student complained about how his teachers constantly spoke on mobile phones or just chit-chatted in the staff room instead of taking classes. “When we approach them and demand them to teach us, they shoe us away by saying that netagiri mat karo, chup chap class main baitho,” said Sohail. Teachers showering children with the choicest abuses at the slightest of pretext is another very common experience as shared by many students.

Another boy Sajid complained about his teacher, who prefers to get drunk and sit in the staff room instead of teaching. He is from Government Boys Senior Secondary School, New Seemapuri.  Arun from Government Boys Senior Secondary School Nand Nagari protested, “When we speak up and complain about poor infrastructure in writing, teachers discourage us by threatening us and our parents with cancelling our admission or reducing our grades, so what option do we have other than quietly embracing all the ill-treatment and deprivation of our rights?” 

Kanchan from Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, New Seemapuri, was angry about safety of girl students. “When we are travelling back from school, boys, who should be inside classrooms in the second shift, stand outside and tease us daily. When we complained to the principal about it, she brushed it aside as if it was a non-issue,” she said.

Chandni, another student from the same school, complained how the teacher made them run around for locating darris to sit on, many times for two periods out of eight! “We try to make arrangements for our own seating instead of studying at school. We have to sit on floor whether in cold winters, hot summers or wet monsoons. How many children can tolerate these hardships continuously?” she questioned. Shehzadi from Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, E Block, Nand Nagari exposed the level of difficulty faced by children at school when she shared how her teacher asked her to pick a broom and clean the toilets if she felt they were smelly and unusable.

Regarding admission-related issues, Samina, a parent, shared how she ran around for about two years to get her child admitted to school. “We are illiterate and don’t know our rights so the school takes advantage of that and makes unnecessary demands from us to find excuses to refuse our children education,” she said. Shahana, another parent, recollected how only one of her five children got admission to the government school after she ran from pillar to post, that too in class one when her daughter should have been in class five. Her admission was based on a relative’s residence proof despite RTE stipulating that no such documents were required for admission to any child before the age of 14 years.

 

Another boy Sohail from Bawana complained about how he was forced to dirty water from the school water cooler by his teacher that gave him typhoid. Another student shared how girls in her class have a harrowing time dealing with their teachers, who pull their hair routinely and call them ‘characterless’ based on their own mood swings. “It depresses us no end,” she said. 

In the case of children from New Seemapuri resettlement colony, which is the only minority district of Delhi, there are only four government schools they can approach, two schools under the MCD and two under the Delhi Government. This implies that on an average, 100-125 children get stifled into one classroom. “There is a very disproportionate distribution of resources in such a densely populated area. More schools must be provided along with basic infrastructural facilities like clean toilets, clean drinking water, classrooms that have desks and chairs and a committed teaching staff to fulfill the promise of quality education under the RTE,” said Ritu Mehra, co-founder of Pardarshita.

The sunwai was attended by Chairperson of National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Wajahat Habibullah, member of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) Mamta Sahai, former advisor of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and founder of Artha-Astha Radhika Alkazi, Convener of National Right to Education Forum Amrish Rai and many other NGO representatives working on the issue of child rights.

In the opinion of Sahai, since DCPCR is a quasi-judicial body with restricted powers, probably a PIL would make authorities more responsible and accountable while discharging their duties towards children. “If children give us their complaints in writing, we would do everything we can to resolve them,” she promised. Rajiv, founder Pardarshita, however exclaimed that till the time a mechanism for time-bound case disposal at DCPCR is evolved, children’s right to education can never be ensured as precious time gets wasted in paper-work stretching for months, sometimes years.

Shri Habibullah, however sounded more positive. He said that Commissions do have powers of a civil court so cases regarding discrimination of specific communities including violation of their RTE should be brought to their notice and they would certainly take cognizance of the same.

East mayor orders adherence to RTE

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/310696/east-mayor-orders-adherence-rte.html

New Dehi, Feb 7, 2013, DHNS :

Admission in MCD schools shouldn’t be denied for lack of documents

The East Delhi Municipal Corporation mayor has directed all the schools of the civic body to admit students under the Right to Education Act even if their parents do not submit the required documents. The schools should also put up boards making this clear. 

Pardarshita, an NGO working in the field of education, had submitted a representation to the mayor about the problems faced by parents who are unable to submit residence proof and birth certificates of their children, and are denied admission.

Rajeev Kumar of Pardarshita said the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 says if parents do not have birth certificate or residence proof at the time of admission, the child will not be denied admission. 

“Those parents, who do not have any documents will submit self-declaration about the date of birth of the child on plain paper without any requirement for an affidavit or stamp paper,” said Kumar.

He said apart from asking for several documents from parents, principals of most schools force parents to submit date of birth of child on stamp paper worth Rs 50. “This has resulted in thousands of children being deprived of schooling every year,” he said, reminding that MCD schools get students from the financially weaker section.

The EDMC mayor has now sent a letter to corporation officials, telling them about the demand from some schools for such documents, and the denial of admission to children. “This is in clear violation of RTE act and such practices cannot be allowed and will not be tolerated,” said the letter.

The letter also said a board should be displayed outside each MCD school, stating that children will get admission even if the parents don’t have any documents. “By displaying such board outside the schools thousands of children would benefit and could get education without facing any difficulty, which is their right now,” it said.

School principals and education directors have been directed to ensure that the boards are displayed. East Delhi has around 400 primary schools. MCD nursery admissions begin on April 1.

High Court issues direction to DOE for formation of School Management Committees

Dear friends,

Greetings!

As we are aware that under the Right To Education Act, 2009 (RTE), the formation of School Management Committees (SMCs) is mandatory. The rules for implementation of this Act have also been framed according to which schools in Delhi were supposed to form SMCs before 23.05.2012. However, the schools have neither formed any SMCs nor is there any mechanism put in place to monitor their formation and functioning. This is also because the Department of Education has not issued any guidelines for their formation, which is in clear cut violation of the RTE. The organization has forwarded several reminders and requests to the concerned authorities like NCPCR, Secretary Education but nothing happened.

After waiting for 13 months, Pardarshita filed a Public Interest Litigation in High Court through Adv. Ritu Mehra and Adv. Divyajyoti Jaipuriar. Today was the first hearing and the Litigation was taken into account by Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble High Court has issued directions to the Department of Education to submit a report within six weeks regarding steps taken by the Department for the formation of SMCs.

In Solidarity,

Rajiv Kumar

Following is the copy of the Order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

W.P.(C) 530/2013 

PARDARSHITA            …  Petitioner 

Through: Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv. with Mrs. Ritu Mehra, Adv. 

Versus 

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR   … Respondents 

Through: None. 

CORAM: 

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 

O R D E R 

30.01.2013 

1. This public interest litigation is filed seeking for the following reliefs: 

a) Order the respondents to issue directions for the formation of Schools Management Committee in each and every school within three weeks of passing an order by this Hon’ble Court as mandated under the provisions of RTE Act, 2009 and rules framed thereunder. 

b) Order the respondents to ensure  that the meetings of the SMCs are organized periodically as mandated under the Act and Rules framed thereunder in order to increase participation of parents and guardians in the better administration of schools. 

2. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that all schools falling under Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 are mandated to constitute a School Management Committee in terms of Rule 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 in a period of six months from the appointed date, i.e.,  01.04.2010, however, most of the schools have not constituted a School Management Committee. A similar Rule 3 has been framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi known as the Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. It is the  further grievance of the petitioner that a representation dated  14.07.2012 was made to the Secretary of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi for issuing circular for the formation of School Management Committee, however, no action has been taken in this regard. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 

3. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be justified. In the wake of Rule 3 of the Rules framed for the purpose; by the Union of India and the Delhi Government, who are competent to frame the rules in terms of Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, respondent No.1/Government of NCT of Delhi through Secretary of Education are obligated to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon. 

4. We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Education Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to consider the said representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondent in a period of eight weeks and the decision thereon shall also be communicated to the petitioner, immediately thereafter. 

5. The petition is disposed of. 

Sd/-  

CHIEF JUSTICE 

Sd/-   

V.K. JAIN, J 

JANUARY 30, 2013 

Remarkable Order by Hon’ble Mayor EDMC for admission of children in Primary Schools

Mayor, EDMC passes a remarkable order for implementation of RTE Act It is clearly mentioned in the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act 2009 that if parents don’t have birth certificate of their child or the proof of residence at the time of admission, the child will not be denied admission. Those parents who don’t have any document will submit a self-declaration about the date of birth of child on a plain paper. But the reality is something totally different as at the time of admission, parents are asked to produce birth certificate of the child, residence proof, or rent agreement; and if they fail to do so, they are simply denied admission of their child. Not only this, principals of most of the schools force desperate parents to submit date of birth of child on a Stamp Paper worth Rs. 50/=. This has resulted in thousands of children being deprived of schooling every year. In this context, Pardarshita submitted a written representation to the Hon’ble Mayor Dr. Annapurna Mishra, in which it was demanded that the admission of the children should not be denied if the parents don’t have any documents. Considering our representation, the Hon’ble Mayor, keeping in view the best interest of the children, has ordered the Municipal Commissioner, EDMC to ensure that a board be displayed outside all MCD schools on which it is should be clearly mentioned that those parents who don’t have birth certificate of child or residence proof, their child will still be admitted. They can declare date of birth of their child on a simple white paper and they don’t need to file any affidavit on stamp paper.

On behalf of the needy suffering parents, we thank the Mayor for handing out this much needed Order. Implementation of the law is the biggest challenge of this country and poor implementation has rendered many good laws, useless. Political will is most important if we want good laws actually being put to work on field. Honorable Mayor EDMC has shown her commitment to fullfiling the law not just in letter but even in spirit. We believe, this step by the Mayor shall give a bright future to tens of thousands of children, who would have otherwise languished on streets, or would have indulged in begging, or child labor, or would have got entangled in drug abuse or juvenile crime.

Warmly,

Rajiv Kumar

Following is the letter by the Mayor, and a sample of how this Order will look like on display:-

This is regarding Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act which has been enacted since April 2009. As per the provision of this Act the children of 6-14 years will not be denied for admission if the parents don’t have either birth certificate of child or residence proof.

According to a submission received by my office from Pardarshita, an NGO, some schools are asking the parents to produce the residence proof/birth certificate/ rent agreement/ affidavit if they want to admit their child. If the parents fail to produce these documents their child are not getting admission.

This is in clear violation of RTE act and such practices cannot be allowed and will not be tolerated.

In consultation with Education committee chairman Shri Harsh Malhotra, I have decided that to ensure free and fair admission process and strict adherence to RTE Act, A board outside each MCD school should be displayed with a note that if the parents do not have any document still their child will get admission in the school. By displaying such board outside the schools thousands of children would be benefited and could get education without facing any difficulty, which is their Right now.

This would be the responsibility of Education Director and School Principals to ensure that these boards are displayed before commencement of new admission process this year.

The sample board is enclosed with this letter.

Dr. Annapurna Mishra

Commissioner, EDMC

CC:

Chairman, Education Committee

Director, Education, EDMC

Enclosed: Sample Board

दाखिले के लिए सूचना शिक्षा का अधिकार 2009 के तहत 6 से 14 वर्ष के आयु  के सभी बच्चों को स्कूल में दाखिला मिलने व शिक्षा पाने का अधिकार है। दाखिले के लिए किसी भी बच्चे को मना नहीं क्या जाएगा, बच्चे का दाखिला उनकी आयु के हिसाब से संबन्धित क्लास में किया जाएगा और किसी प्रकार का टेस्ट नहीं लिया जायेगा। दाखिले के लिए निवास प्रमाण पत्र व बच्चे के जन्म प्रमाण के लिए निम्नलिखित दस्तावेज़ आप जमा कर सकते हैं: निवास का प्रमाण (कोई एक दस्तावेज): ·         बिजली/पानी/टेलीफ़ोन का बिल, राशन कार्ड, चुनाव पहचान पत्र या आधार कार्ड बच्चे के जन्म का प्रमाण (कोई एक दस्तावेज़): ·         जन्म प्रमाण पत्र, अस्पताल /नर्स के रजिस्टर का रिकॉर्ड या आंगनवाड़ी रिकॉर्ड यदि किसी अभियावक या माता-पिता के पास निवास या बच्चे के जन्म का कोई प्रमाण नहीं है तो ऐसे अभिभावक या माता पिता एक सादे कागज़ पर अपने बच्चे की जन्म तिथि लिख कर घोषणा कर सकते हैं। स्टांप पेपर पर किसी प्रकार के एफ़िडेविट जमा करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है।

No Admission for out of school children!!!

Dear Friends

Greetings!

As per High Court Order, the admission for children who have studied from unrecognised schools or have not gone to school at all, has become difficult.

The Department of Education has issued a Circular for admissions for session 2012-2013 and has stated that the admissions for children who have studied from unrecognised schools or are out of school will be done as per decision of Hon’ble High Court in the matter of WP(c) No. 4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197/2010 Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ANR. (Copy Enclosed).

When Pardarshita tried to get the admissions of out-of-school children then DDE office (North East) and respective school principals responded by saying that we won’t give admissions until the child clears an entrance test. In purview of this Circular and High Court Order, the spirit of section 4 of RTE Act 2009 has completely vanished.

Therefore please read these Circular and High Court Order and give your valuable suggestions.

In solidarity,

Rajiv Kumar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 5th  August, 2010.

+ W.P.(C) 4953/2010 & CM No.9804/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions) 

%KUMARI UZMA BANO & ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through: Mr.    Ashok Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: None.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 4954/2010 & CM No.9805/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions) 

KUMARI GULAFSHAH & ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through: Mr.    Ashok Agarwal &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: None.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 4974/2010 & CM No.9831/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions) 

KUMARI RAKHI JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through: Mr.    Ashok Agarwal &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: None.

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 1 of 13

AND

+ W.P.(C) 4986/2010 & CM No.9848/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions) 

KUMARI FIRDOS & ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through: Mr.    Ashok Agarwal &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: None.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 5178/2010 & CM No.10236/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions)

MASTER AMIR KHAN ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Somdutt Kaushik, Adv.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 5191/2010 & CM No.10250/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions)

KUMARI BARKHA YADAV ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Somdutt Kaushik, Adv.

AND

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 2 of 13

+ W.P.(C)   5192/2010   &   CM   No.10251/2010   (u/S   151   CPC   for

interim directions)

KUMARI HINA KHAN ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.  S.Q.  Kazim,  Adv.  with  Mr.  Alim

Mizaj,    Mr.    Haris    Usmani    &    Mr.

Mukul K. Singh, Advocates for R-1.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 5194/2010 & CM No.10253/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions)

KUMARI RIZWANA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates.

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate for

R-1.

AND

+ W.P.(C) 5195/2010 & CM No.10254/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim directions)

KUMARI BALOON ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate for

R-1.

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 3 of 13

AND

+ W.P.(C)   5197/2010   &   CM   No.10255/2010   (u/S   151   CPC   for

interim directions)

MASTER MOHD FAZIL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.    Ashok    Agarwal    &    Mr.    J.B.

Prakash, Advocates

Versus

GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.  S.Q.  Kazim,  Adv.  with  Mr.  Alim

Mizaj,    Mr.    Haris    Usmani    &    Mr.

Mukul K. Singh, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM :-

HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes

in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. These   writ   petitions,   have   been   preferred   complaining   that   the

petitioner/petitioners  in  each  of  the  writ  petitions  has/have  approached  the

School   impleaded   as   respondent   no.2   in   each   of   the   writ   petitions,   for

admission  but  has/have  been  denied  admission.  All  the  said  Schools  are

recognized  schools  within  the  meaning  of  the  Delhi  School  Education  Act,

1973 and are Government Schools. In some of the cases, it  is stated that the

Principal/Head of the school has refused admission inspite of the recommendation of the respondent no.1 Directorate of Education.

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 4 of 13

Admission is sought in various classes, all in or under Class VIII, except four petitioners who are seeking admission in Class IX. While in some cases admission is sought by transfer from schools outside Delhi, in other on account of having left education in between and in yet other on account of earlier school being till a particular class only.

2. It  is  inter  alia  the  case  of  the  counsel  for  the  petitioners  that  such

denial of admission is in violation of The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The said Act has been promulgated to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years. Section 3(1) thereof, vests in every child of the age of six to fourteen years, a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood School till completion of elementary education. Elementary education is defined in Section 2(f) as education from first to the eighth class. School has been defined in Section 2(n) as a recognised school imparting elementary education, including a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority or an aided school receiving aid or grant from Government or local authority or a school belonging to specified category or even an unaided school. Section 6 of the Act mandates the Government and local authority to establish within each neighbourhood, schools for carrying out the provisions of the Act and where such Schools are not there, gives a time frame of three years for establishment of such schools. Sections 8 and 9 deal with duties of

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 5 of 13

Government and local authority. Section 10 imposes a duty on parents and guardians to admit or cause to be admitted his/her child or ward to an elementary education in a neighbourhood School. Section 12 imposes an obligation on the School established, owned or controlled by Government or local authority with which we are concerned to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children admitted therein. Section 14 provides for determination of age and Section 14(2) provides that no child shall be denied admission for lack of age proof.

3. Notices of the petitions were issued and since academic session has begun, to avoid delays, personal presence of concerned official of respondent no.1 Directorate of Education of Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed. 

4. The Deputy Director of Education, Mr. B.D. Kaushik is personally present in the Court today. He states that none of the Govt. Schools will deny or have denied admission to any of the students seeking admissions in the said schools. The counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Schools has also made a statement to the said effect. The counsel for the respondent no.2 Schools however states that in some of the cases, the Principals/Head of the 

Schools have required the petitioners/their parents to furnish the „Transfer Certificate‟ and/or have sought to verify the said Transfer Certificate and which has led to a false impression of the schools denying admission. 

5. Rule  139 of the  Delhi School  Education Rules, 1973 provides that  no 

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 6 of 13

student who had previously attended any recognized School, shall be admitted to any aided school unless he produces a Transfer or School Leaving Certificate from the school which was last attended by him.

6. The counsel for the petitioners contends that upon sweeping changes having been brought about by the RTE Act, the same would supercede any provision contrary thereto in the Rules aforesaid and admission cannot be denied by insisting on Transfer Certificate. In my opinion, such general proposition cannot be accepted. While the RTE Act is intended to ensure elementary education, it is the School Act & Rules which concern better organization and development of School Education. The provision for a Transfer Certificate in the Rules is intended for the aided school to which admission is sought to satisfy itself as to till what class the student seeking admission has studied and what was the result of the student for the class last attended. Moreover, I find that Section 5 of the RTE Act while providing for Right of transfer to other School, itself in sub Section (3) mandates the issuance of a transfer certificate though proviso thereto does away with the delay in producing Transfer Certificate as a ground for delaying or denying admission in other School. Thus it cannot be said that owing to the RTE Act, the Rule 139 for Transfer Certificate has become redundant or that the School to which admission is sought cannot demand a Transfer Certificate. 

7. Rule 139(2) provides that where a student seeks admission to an aided 

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 7 of 13

school on the basis of a Transfer Certificate granted by a school in any State or Union Territory other than Delhi, such Certificate is required to be sent for verification and countersignature of the Head of the school in which admission is sought, to the Education Authority of the district in which the School from which Transfer Certificate was obtained is situated. It further provides for provisional admission in the meanwhile. This Rule thus cannot be said to be contrary to the RTE Act. The Rule is also found to be intended for the School to which admission is sought, satisfy itself as to in which class the admission is to be granted.

8. It is thus clarified that the Schools to which the petitioners have sought admission though would be entitled to comply with the provisions of Rule 139 and seek verification of Transfer Certificate but in the meanwhile provisionally admit the child. If upon such verification, any ambiguity/discrepancy is found or clarification deemed necessary, the School shall intimate the parents of the petitioners concerned of the same in writing. If the said ambiguity remains or the Transfer Certificate submitted remaining unverified, the child shall be treated as one who has not previously attended any recognized school and dealt with as mentioned herein below.

9. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that in some of the cases the petitioners have not studied in any recognized or Govt. School. The provision with respect thereto is made in Rule 141 of the Delhi School

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 8 of 13

Education Rules, 1973. In such case the parent or guardian is required to give full history of the previous education of the child and to furnish an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper duly attested to the effect that the child had not attended any recognized school till then. Though Sub Rule (2) of Rule 141 provides for the Head of the school to which admission is sought, to in consultation with the Zonal Education Officer arrange for a test in such cases to determine the suitability of the student for admission to the class in which the admission is sought, the counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 4 of RTE Act is contrary thereto and thereunder admission has to be granted to the child in a class appropriate to his/her age. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is thus that even if the child aged about 13 years has not previously studied in any recognized school and seeks admission to say, Class-VII in which others of his/her age are studying, the School is obliged to admit the student to Class-VII only and not to any lower class. He further invites attention to the proviso to Section 4 of the RTE Act which provides for special training to be given to such students on admission in such class. The counsel further invites attention to Section 2(o) of the RTE Act defining “screening procedure” to contend that the holding of a test as provided for in Rule 141(2) (supra) would be a screening procedure which is prohibited under Section 13 of the RTE Act.

10. Section 2(o) defines the screening procedure as the method of selection for admission of a child, in preference over another. I am unable to

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 9 of 13

accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the holding of a test as prescribed in Rule 141 (2) would be a screening procedure which is prohibited under the RTE Act. The test under Rule 141(2) is intended only to determine the class in which the student is fit to be admitted, depending upon his past learning and capacity to learn. The student while participating in the said test is only giving a test of his own ability and is not competing with any other child or for admission in preference over another. Rule 132 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 also, while prohibiting test for admission, permits a test as in Rule 141(2).

11. In my view, admitting a child as aforesaid in Class-VII merely because others of his age are studying in that class even though he may not have the acumen or capacity to cope with course or curriculum of Class-VII would be contrary to spirit of the RTE Act of ensuring completion of at least elementary education for each child and rather detrimental thereto. If a child is unable to cope with the demands of a class to which he is admitted he is more likely to abandon his education.

12. The counsel for the petitioners however has rightly pointed out that if such a child is admitted to say Class-I, the same would also be equally detrimental inasmuch as a child of 13 years would be embarrassed in attending Class-I along with students much below his age. 

13. The  procedure  provided  in  Rule  141(2)  of  the  Head  of  the  School  to 

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 10 of 13

which admission is sought in consultation with the Zonal Education Officer to assessing the class to which a child should be admitted is found to be appropriate. They will in such a test assess that the child is able to cope with the demands of the class to which he is admitted and is not embarrassed in front of his peers and remains interested in pursuing the education further; may be such a child can be admitted, if not to Class-VII, to Class-VI or Class-V.

14. The counsel for the petitioners however contends that if such an interpretation is taken, the first proviso to Section 4 of RTE Act will become redundant. In my opinion, no. Even though the child may be admitted to class below that in which others of his age are studying, the child is still likely to require the special training mentioned in the said proviso. I may also add that there does not appear to be any maximum age limit for admission to any particular class and the School Act or the Rules do not provide any class in relation to age. The counsel for the petitioners has rather shown the explanation to Rule 21 of the Recognized Schools (Admission Procedure for Pre-Primary Class) Order, 2007 which only provides the minimum age for admission and expressly provides that there is no bar for older children to getting admission for Pre-school Class or Pre-primary Class or Class-I. For this reason also it cannot be said that there is any law or Rule connecting a class to age. The expression “in a class appropriate to his or her age” in Section 4 of RTE ACT cannot be read as

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 11 of 13

“in a class to which others of his age are studying” and it shall remain open to the head of the School to which admission is sought to, in consultation with the Zonal Education Officer determine the Class to which such student should be admitted.

15. It is thus directed that qua the petitioners who are seeking admission to the respondent Schools without previously attending any recognized Schools, the Head of Schools, in exercise of powers under Rule 141 (2) and in consultation with the Zonal Education Officer shall assess the child to determine the suitability for admission in a particular class and in the light of what has been laid down hereinabove. 

16. The counsel for the respondents has also contended that several of the petitioners instead of choosing the school in the proximity of their residence are seeking admission to distant schools. The counsel for the petitioners though controverts the same but states that if any other school closer in proximity is pointed out, admission thereto will be accepted. 

17. The counsel for the petitioners has also stated that besides the petitioners herein, there are about 1000 other children who are also being similarly denied admissions. To prevent this Court from being inundated with similar petitions, the Deputy Director of Education present in the Court is directed to, upon being approached by such children, deal with them also on the same lines as discussed hereinabove. The counsel for the petitioners 

W.P.(C)No.4953, 4954, 4974, 4986, 5178, 5191, 5192, 5194, 5195, 5197 /2010 Page 12 of 13

further states that out of the aforesaid number, about 400 are children with disabilities. He further points out the judgment dated 16th September, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6771/2008 titled Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCTD wherein it was held “It is made clear that no disabled child shall be refused admission in any of the schools either run by the State Govt. or the local bodies”. The Deputy Director of

Education states that such students shall also be dealt with in accordance with the said judgment of the Division Bench. I may also draw attention to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the RTE Act in this regard.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)

5th August, 2010 bs..