Date: 11/26/2005
HIGH COURT NOTICE TO UNAIDED SCHOOL ON REMOVAL OF STUDENTS BELONGING TO WEAKER SECTIONS NOTE ON PROCEEDINGS 25.11.2005 /// CORAM: Hon,ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen /// The Delhi High Court issued notice to Rukmani Devi Jaipuria school and government of Delhi for 01.12.2005 to reply on the petition. It is a case in which two students were granted full fee concession by an unaided private school in the academic year 2004-2005 under 20 percent freeship quota for children of weaker sections. However, in the academic year 2005-2006, sometimes in August, the parents were asked to pay full fee and when the parents did not pay and pleaded for full fee concession, the school by a written order dated 16.09.2005 struck off the names of the students and asked them not to attend the school. I submitted to the Court that the action of the school is illegal on two counts, (i) it is in breach of Delhi Government order dated 27.04.2004 which mandates all the recognized private school to provide admission and freeship to the children of weaker sections to the extent of 20% and (ii) it violates Rule 158 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. In terms of both the said order and rule, the school cannot withdraw the concession of fee, once granted. /// Ashok agarwal, Advocate M-9811101923 25.11.2005 /// COPY OF PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W. P. (C) NO. 22205 OF 2005/// IN THE MATTER OF : Writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of India. /// IN THE MATTER OF : Impugned action on the part of Rukhmani Devi Jaipuria School in striking off the names of the petitioner’s wards namely, master Priyank Mittal and Mayank Mittal from the rolls of the school for the academic session 2005-2006 for non payment of fee vide impugned letter dated 16.5.2005. /// IN THE MATTER OF : Violation of Fundamental Right to Education of the wards of the petitioner as guaranteed to them under articles 14, 21 & 21 A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973. /// IN THE MATTER OF : /// (1) Constitution of India /// (2) Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. /// IN THE MATTER OF : Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ved Prakash, 3899, IInd Floor, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. ………Petitioner Versus 1. Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School, Through its Principal, 23, Rajpur Road, Delhi110054. 2. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Through the Director of Education, Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines. Delhi-110054. ……..Respondents To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SAID HIGH COURT. The humble petition of the petitioner above named RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned letter dated 16.9.2005 of the Rukmani Devi Jaipuria School, hereinafter referred as respondent-school, whereby respondent no.1 has informed the petitioner that the names of his wards have been struck off due to non payment of fee and he was asked not to send his children to the school as the children would not be allowed to sit in their respective classes. True copy of the said letter dated 16.9.2005 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-A. 2. The facts of the case so far as relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition are given in brief as under. 3. The petitioner submits that his two sons Master Priyank Mittal and Master Mayank Mittal have been studying in the respondent school in classes IV and VII respectively. It is submitted that in the academic session 2004-2005, both of them were given full fee concession on his request on the gound that he was the only earning member in the family and his monthly income is about Rs.3000/- and he was not in a position to pay fee for these children. 4. The petitioner submits that in the academic session 2005-2006 both the children were promoted and allowed to attend the classes and the school raised no demand in regard to payment of fee. It is submitted that it was only in the month of August 2005, that the school verbally asked the petitioner to deposit the full fee and that no fee concession would be given in the current academic year and in case, the fee was not deposited, the children would not be allowed to continue in the school. The petitioner requested the school that his financial condition was same as in the previous year hence, the fee concession allowed in the academic session 2004-2005 should not be withdrawn for the academic session 2005-2006. 5. The petitioner submits that thereafter the respondent school issued letter dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure-A) informing the petitioner that the names of his wards have been struck off due to non payment of fee and the children would not be allowed to sit in their classes. Hoping that the respondent school would consider granting of full fee concession in the academic session 2005-2006, the children continued to go to school and attend the classes. 6. The petitioner submits that on 9.11.2005 Priyank Mittal was not allowed to sit in the classroom but was made to sit in the room of Head of Primary Section for the entire working day of the school. The schools were however, closed on 10.11.2005 to 15.11.2005 on account of holidays. Thereafter, on 16.11.2005 Master Priyank was again not allowed to sit in the class and the petitioner was told that Master Priyank would not be allowed any more to attend the classes with the result that since then Master Priyank is sitting at home. 7. The petitioner submits that Master Mayank has been allowed to attend classes till date, but his attendance is not been marked since 17.9.2005 and has been told by the respondent school that he would not be allowed to take second term examination scheduled to be held on 22.11.2005. It is also submitted that his attendance is not being marked since 17.9.2005. 8. The petitioner submits that he is engaged in the work of supplying bidees and matchboxes to the shopkeepers on bicycle and his monthly income is approximately Rs.3000/-. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife and three children living in a small room. Due to unsatisfactory education standard in the Government school, the petitioner is compelled to send his children to the respondent school, which is an unaided private school. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained income certificate dated 12.8.2004 from the office of Deputy Commissioner (North) and submitted the same to the respondent school as demanded by them vide letter dated 20.7.2004. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner for fee concession was recommended by the office of the Education Minister vide letter dated 7.7.2004 and on submission of the said income certificate, the respondent school allowed full fee concession to the petitioner in respect of both of his sons namely Master Priyank Mittal and Master Mayank Mittal then studying in classes III and VI during the academic session 2004-2005. True copies of the Education Ministers letter dated 7.7.2004, letter dated 20.7.2004 of the respondent school and the income certificate dated 12.8.2004 are enclosed hereto as Annexure B, C & D respectively. 9. The petitioner submits that the respondent school is governed by the provisions of Delhi School Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. 10. The petitioner invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of the rule 158 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973 which is read as under. “158. Fee concession ____________ eligible students” 11. The petitioner submits that in terms of the above provisions the respondent school is bound to grant full fee concession to the petitioner in regard to his sons namely Master Priyank Mittal and Master Mayank Mittal studying in classes IV and VII in the current academic session 2005-2006. It is submitted that the refusal on the part of the respondent school declining grant of full fee concession to the petitioner is in violation of the aforesaid provisions of section 158 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. 12. The petitioner submits that he belongs to a weaker section of the society as stated above, and his monthly income is approximately Rs.3000 per month. He is the only earning member in the family. It is submitted that he is entitled to free education for his both the sons under 20% freeship quota as decided by the Government of Delhi by order dated 27-4.2004. It is submitted that the respondent school has social obligation towards the weaker sections of the society. It is submitted that by declining fee concession to the petitioner in regard to his sons studying in the school, the respondent school is in breach of the said social obligation. Needless to say that under article 21 & 21A of the Constitution of India, every child has a fundamental right to receive free and compulsory elementary education and it does not matter whether he is studying in any private or government school. It is respectfully submitted that in letters and spirit of article 21 & 21 A of the Constitution of India, the respondent school is obliged to provide free and compulsory education to all the children studying in their school and the government is obliged to meet the expenses of all the children so studying at least up to the elementary education level. 13. The petitioner submits that the respondent action is violative of the Fundamental Rights of the wards of the petitioner as guaranteed to them under article 14, 21 & 21 A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and rules framed there under. The impugned action is also in violation of order dated 27.4.2004 of the government of Delhi whereby government of Delhi directed all the recognised schools to admit students belonging to the weaker section to the extent of 20% and to grant them freeship. 13. The petitioner has not filed any similar petition either in Hon’ble Supreme Court or in any Hon’ble High Court of India. 14. The petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition. 15. In the premises aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:- (a) issue writ of certiorari in nature of certiorari calling record of the respondent school in the matter of impugned letter dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure-A) and after examining thereof quash the impugned letter dated 16.9.2005. (b) issue writ of mandamus or in nature of mandamus directing the respondent school to consider the case of the petitioners wards namely Master Priyank Mittal and Master Mayank Mittal studying in classes IV & VII for grant of full fee concession for the current academic session 2005-2006. (c) issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the Government of Delhi to take appropriate action against the respondent school for failure on the part of the respondent school to comply with the provisions of rule 158 of Delhi School Act education rule 1973. (d) Issue any appropriate order or direction directing the respondent school to allow the petitioners wards namely Master Priyank Mittal and Master Mayank Mittal to take secondary term examination scheduled to be held on 22.11.2005. (e) allow the present writ petition with costs. New Delhi Ashok Agarwal Dated:22.11.2005 (Advocate for the petitioner) Nilesh Singit 59/2 Rekha Kunj, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, King's Circle, Matunga, Bombay, Maharashtra, India - 400 019. nileshsingit@yahoo.co.uk http://www.nileshsingit.com/ tel: fax: 91 22 24096539 91 22 24042876 Add me to your address book... Want a signature like this? ...000000000
[_private/ftarc.htm]