PARENTS MOVE HIGH COURT AGAINST UNAIDED SCHOOL UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATING STUDENTS
NOTE:
Parents through Advocate Ashok Agarwal have today moved a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions against the St. Lawrence Convent Secondary School to forthwith stop discriminating against those students who have not made payment of Rs.400/- per month each in the name of smart class and to allow them to attend classes along with those students who have made payment for smart classes and to revert back to old pattern which was in practice before 17.10.2011, prohibit the school from demanding fees on account of Smart Classes without first getting permission from the Directorate of Education, as required under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and direct the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to enquire into the allegations of humiliation, harassment and insult subjected to the students who did not make payment on account of Smart Class by the authorities of the respondent school as mentioned in the complaint dated 17.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 and to take appropriate action against the erring authorities of the respondent/school in accordance with law.
The matter is likely to be heard by the Hon’ble High Court on Monday, 12.12.2011.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
09.12.2011
M- 09811101923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. NO.____ OF 2011
In
W.P. (CIVIL) No. 7326/2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Qasier Javed & Others …… Petitioners
Versus
School & Others …… Respondents
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR DIRECTIONS
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioners have filed the above writ petition challenging the impugned action on the part of the respondent-school in arbitrarily and without justification increasing tuition fees and other charges in the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-12 and the respondent-DOE which has not only power but also duty to check commercialization of education under Delhi School Education Act, 1973 has failed to take any action against the respondent-school. It is submitted that the respondent-school has increased tuition fee by 12% in the academic year 2010-11 and by 40% in the academic year 2011-12. The other grievance in the petition is that the respondent-school has also subjected the hapless parents to pay on account of impermissible heads, like, property tax, SMS Charges, Development Charges and Maintenance Charges etc.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present application is that during the pendency of the above writ petition, the respondent-school has again arbitrarily and illegally increased tuition fee by Rs. 400/- per month per student in Classes I to XII in the name of Smart Class in the quarterly fee slip of October 2011-December 2011 and those students who have refused to pay the said amount of Rs.1200/- (quarterly) have not only been segregated in the class from 17.10.2011 and onwards but have also been subjected to all kinds of humiliation by the respondent-school. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent-school did not even bother to seek prior permission from the respondent-DOE in this matter as is required under Section 17(3) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as the fee hiked has been done in the mid-session. It is also submitted the respondent-DOE has not taken any action so far on various complaints of the parents having been made to it in this regard.
3. The facts so far as relevant for the purposes of the present application are given in brief as under.
4. That on 06.09.2011, all the parents received a sms message from the respondent/school stating :
“We are starting smart classes in association with Educomp shortly”.
5. That on the next day i.e. 07.09.2011, again the parents received a sms message from the respondent-school stating :
“From 01.10.2011, we are starting Smart Classes by the Educomp with latest educational technology on monthly fees of Rs.400/- approx. per month payable with fees from October, 2011”.
6. The petitioners submit that, thereafter, they checked up Smart Class details on the website of Educomp and found that they charge Rs.100-150 per month from a student whereas the respondent-school is charging a hefty amount which is almost three times more, they wrote a letter to the respondent-school on 13.09.2011 requesting the respondent/school to make it free of cost as these assets would belong to school and they were also paying Development Charges and Computer Laboratory Charges.
A true copy of the said letter dated 13.09.2011 is enclosed hereto as Annexure “A”.
7. The petitioners submit that on 19.09.2011, they got a new sms message from the respondent-school stating:
“Some parents do want to choose smart classes. It is optional, if you do not want smart class please deduct Rs.400 per month from the bill. The Classes will be divided. “
8. The petitioners submit that on the same day i.e. 19.09.2011, they received one threatening sms message from the respondent-school stating:
“Once Smart Class is not opted, in future Smart Class will not be provided to such students even if parents are ready to pay from back date, please note carefully.”
9. The petitioners submit that on 03.10.2011, they received fee slips for the quarter Oct 2011-Dec 2011 from the respondent school in which the respondent-school added a sum of Rs.1200/- on account of Smart Class in the tuition fee.
A true copy of the fee bill for the quarter Oct 2011-Dec 2011 is enclosed hereto as Annexure “B”.
10. The petitioners submit that on 13.10.2011, the respondent-school put up a notice on the school board stating:
“From Monday – EDUCOM & NON-EDUCOM students will be divided in separate classes. From Monday 17.10.11 student will be added in EDUCOM Classes”.
A true copy of the said notice is enclosed hereto as Annexure “E”.
11. The petitioners submit that thereafter, by a letter dated 14.10.2011 they sought time from the principal of the respondent-school to meet and discuss the issue but the principal, just two hours after receiving letter, by letter dated 14.10.2011declined to hold a meeting with the parents saying that the matter is pending in the Hon’ble High Court.
True copies of the letters dated 14.10.2011 are enclosed hereto as Annexure D & F respectively.
12. The petitioners submit that from 17.10.2011, the respondent/school divided and separated all students as Educomp and Non-Educomp students. Those who did not deposit Smart Class charges (Rs.400/- per month), their sections, classmates and even teachers separated. It is submitted that the respondent/school failed the students of the active parents in the previous exam (SA-1) as they did not deposit Smart Class charges. The petitioners submit that the respondent/school besides segregating the students without any justification have resorted to mental harassment of these students by calling them “Duffer”, being told “Your parents cannot afford Rs.400/-”, being told “Leave the school immediately, we will give you transfer certificates”. These intolerable words were told by School’s Lady Senior In-charge Mrs. Neeta Kohli. It is submitted that no teacher is attending such segregated students and moreover, the attendance of these students are also not being marked in the attendance register.
13. The petitioners submit that vide letter dated 17.10.2011, they lodged a complaint with Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) and All India Parents Association (AIPA) with a copy thereof to the Deputy Director of Education thereby requesting them to intervene into the matter.
True copy of the said letter dated 17.12.2011 is enclosed hereto as Annexure F.
14. The petitioners submit that All India Parents Association (AIPA), with which the petitioners are associated, has written a letter dated 20.10.2011 to the Director of Education, Delhi thereby brining to his notice the above facts and requesting him to take immediate action in the matter. It is submitted that since the Director of Education did not take any action on the complaints, the parents and the students on 24.10.2011 protested in front of the office of the Director of Education demanding immediate action against the respondent-school. It is submitted that the parents and the students also met and handed over a representation dated 24.10.2011 to Shri Diwan Chand, Director of Education who listened them very passionately and assured them that he would take action within three days but no action has been taken till date.
True copies of the said representations dated 20.10.2011 & 24.10.2011 are enclosed hereto as Annexures ‘G” & “H”.
15. The petitioners respectfully submits that the respondent/ school were not justified in increasing the fees in the mid session without obtaining prior permission from the Directorate of Education, as required under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. In any case, the respondent/school are not entitled to segregate the students on the basis of facilities and further they are not entitled to humiliate, harass and insult the students.
16. The petitioner respectfully submits that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondent/school tantamount to commercialization of education. It is all greed on the part of the respondent/school which has resulted in harassment of the hapless parents/students. It is also submitted that apart from that, the same is in clear violation of Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment to the child. Moreover, the same amounts to cruelty to children and attract punishment under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to a Judgment of U.S. Supreme Court in case of Brown vs. Board of Education 347 US 283 (1954) where it has been held “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, thus violates the doctrine of equality”. The said judgment of US Supreme Court has been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgement in case of State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. K. Shyam K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737.
17. It is therefore, most humbly prayed that pending decision in the above writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. direct the respondent school to forthwith stop discriminating against those students who have not made payment of Rs.400/- per month each in the name of smart class and to allow them to attend classes along with those students who have made payment for smart classes and to revert back to old pattern which was in practice before 17.10.2011;
b. prohibit the respondent/school from demanding fees on account of Smart Classes without first getting permission from the Directorate of Education, as required under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973; and
c. direct the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to enquire into the allegations of humiliation, harassment and insult subjected to the students who did not make payment on account of Smart Class by the authorities of the respondent school as mentioned in the complaint dated 17.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 (Annexures F, G and H to this application) and to take appropriate action against the erring authorities of the respondent/school in accordance with law.
(Ashok Agarwal & Kusum Sharma)
Advocates for the Petitioners
483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Ph: 23384000, Mob-9811101923
Place: New Delhi
Dated:08.12.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment