In a relief to thousands of students studying in coaching institutes, a consumer forum in Delhi has held that they can seek a refund of fees if they decide to leave an institute without completing the course.

Continue Reading »

NEW DELHI: Shocked at the manner in which a Delhi school treated a student by asking him to leave once he was found to be dyslexic, the Delhi high court has ordered the school to take him back.

Giving relief to Priyam Kumar, a student of St Mary’s School in Safdarjung Enclave, Justice Kailash Gambhir directed the school to take back the student in class IX since he has cleared the class VIII annual examination.

Criticising the school’s attitude, the court noted that instead of providing him with special care the student was meted out “harsh and inhumane treatment”.

“School poses multiple challenges for students with dyslexia and such other disorders, but it is the responsibility of the school to provide a friendly and conducive environment to channelize their energies so that such children can successfully thrive in the classroom,” the HC observed while asking the school to immediately take back Kumar on its rolls.

HC also empathized with the parents of children with dyslexia. “Parents of such children already have an arduous task and schools are expected to make concerted effort to make their task easier and not subject them to their administrative tyranny leaving them in the lurch,” the court said.

Priyam’s father had approached the court after the school ignored the state education directorate’s order directing the school to take back the student.

On its part the school pleaded that such students need more attention and hence it is difficult to handle them.

HC took a dim view of the school’s submission and said, “Giving education to such students will make the environment more congenial and other students will also learn as how to cooperate with each other.”

The court also sought a status report from the school by July 14.

The Times of India, 15 May 2010

MUMBAI: To set up a private un-aided school is the fundamental right of every citizen, the Bombay HC has ruled. Giving a major push to private equity in setting up schools, a division bench of Justice Ajay Khanwilkar and Justice Sambhaji Shinde overturned a 2009 ban on permissions for new unaided Marathi schools.

“The state should encourage private investment in educational institutions on unaided basis, which the private management is entitled to pursue on condition that it would fulfil the prescribed norms and standards and not indulge in profiteering and commercialisation of education,” said the bench.

“The induction of private institutions into the field of education would introduce competition, which is healthy for the growth of quality education and not merely paper-compliance-education imparted by the state through schools receiving grant in aid, which have dearth of highly trained and professional staff and are notorious for lack of punctuality and efficiency.”

The HC said it would also give children a “fair opportunity to choose between the two institutions”. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by around 70 trusts challenging a July 2009 government resolution that refused approval for new private, unaided Marathi schools till the state has finalised a “School Development Plan”. The SDP has been in the works since 2000, but has still not seen the light of the day.

The court rejected the government’s contention that the ban was a reasonable restriction on fundamental right and termed the new rule “illegal and unconstitutional being discriminatory and arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of non application of mind”. The court said the plan was applicable only to government and aided schools and not to private unaided institutions.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s verdict on private professional colleges in the TMA Pai case, the court said the right to establish an educational institution was a fundamental right guaranteed to “every citizen” of India. The court held that the restrictions, such as the necessity to take prior permission to start a private unaided school, impinges on the fundamental right to occupation. The state can impose conditions on such schools, but only at the stage of granting/ continuing recognition, said the court.

“The demand for more educational institutions is ever growing. If the state cannot provide educational institutions imparting quality education at every corner of the state—even though constitutionally obliged to do so—on account of financial compulsions or inadequate infrastructural resources, there is no justification in denying the opportunity to the private management to establish an unaided educational institution in such areas, on the grounds that the locality is not included in the state’s perspective or School Development Plan,” said the judges.

The HC said the ban could not be sustained in the face of statistics that there was no secondary school in 50,000 villages and no primary school in 11,000 villages across Maharashtra. The government argued that it was the state’s duty to provide quality education. The court said the “subject of imparting education cannot be said to be in the exclusive domain of the state”.

The state’s other contention that the masterplan was necessary to prevent schools from crowding in one locality also failed to cut ice with the HC. The government counsel claimed that due to the mushrooming of schools, the state was forced to close down divisions or even entire schools due to lack of demand.

Disagreeing with the view, the HC said the existence of a particular school in a locality could not be the grounds to deny permission to set up a new institution. “The children from the locality will have a choice between the private unaided school and the municipal or grant in aid schools. Taking any other view would be denial of opportunity to the children to exercise the option to pursue quality education offered by unaided schools to make them self-reliant and not merely potential pen pushers.”

The government’s final argument that that private institutions exploit students as well as teachers, led the court to say that such a condition exposed its weakness. “The state should play a proactive role in setting up permanent regulatory authority invested with the task of continual monitoring of such institutions, in respect of infrastructure, quality of education and also matters related to the staff and oversee if the fees were used in profiteering and commercialisation of education.”

The court ruled that the July 2009 GR was discriminatory as private unaided English, Urdu and Gujrati medium schools as well as municipal Marathi-medium schools were approved during this period. The high court has directed the state to take a decision on the request of the schools for grant of recognition by May 31, 2010, so that they can start their academic year in June 2010.

Shibu Thomas, The Times of India, 19 April 2010

The Right to Education Act (RTE) that came into effect from April 1 mentions there should be no entrance test for a child seeking admission to any class.But a Delhi government advertisement on March 28 — an admission notice for Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalayas (RPVVs) —  says students must sit for an entrance exam for admission to class 6.

In what would be a clear violation of the section 13 of the RTE Act, “if any school or person … subjects a child to a screening procedure, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contraventions.”

The admission notice mentions, “All registered students will have to appear in the entrance test that will be administered on the same day, date and time in all RPVVs.” The entrance test for the RPVVs, which have classes 6 to 12, is conducted every year consists of objective type questions to test numerical ability, mental ability, general knowledge and language.

City-based lawyer and activist Ashok Agarwal, who is also associated with the NGO Social Jurist, has already written to CM Sheila Dikshit, Directorate of Education (DoE) and Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) to intervene and withdraw it immediately.”What is the point of having such an act and then see it undermined by such tests. The government should withdraw the notice immediately,” said Agarwal, who plans to file a PIL if the government does not take immediate action.

“When I approached government officials, they said that in the absence of an entrance test, the standard of the RPVVs will fall,” he added.

Amod Kanth, chairperson, DCPCR said, “We will ensure there is no violation of the Act. We will take up the issue with the DoE on Monday.”

Hindustan Times, 4 April 2010

The legislation that makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right of a child has hit a legal hurdle.

Some private schools have challenged the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), saying it was an attempt by the government to abdicate responsibility of providing education to children and shifting the burden on private schools.

Arguing for the Society for Un-aided Private Schools, advocate Harish Salve told the Supreme Court on Monday that the Act was “unconstitutional” and “violated fundamental rights” of unaided private educational institutions.

A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan issued a notice to the Centre and also the human resource development ministry.

Along with free and compulsory education for children aged between 6 and 14, the Act also mandates 25 per cent reservation in all schools for children from weaker sections.

Salve said the Act violated the rights of private educational institutions and the maximum autonomy granted to them. The public interest litigation (PIL) recalled a Constitution Bench order, which ruled for maximum autonomy for private institutions.

The PIL also challenges certain sections of the Act that take away the right of schools, including minority institutions, to select students. The Act imposes absolute mandates upon the schools to admit students without screening them and restrains the authorities from verifying the proof of age, it says. The Act is silent on the fate of children between the age of 3 and 6 years, a crucial period for a child’s education to commence.

Hindustan Times, 23 March 2010