tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584195065085988792024-03-08T14:08:15.613-08:00School Fee hikeAdv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-80790999654573807132011-10-19T08:13:00.000-07:002011-10-19T08:14:27.817-07:00IT IS ALL GREEDCASE OF HUMILIATION, HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION OF HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT STUDENTS BY THE SCHOOL - All India Parents Association (AIPA) has received a complaint from the parents body of St. Lowrence Convent School, Geeta Colony, Delhi regarding serious psychological violence on hundreds of students by the school authorities in the guise of "Smart Class". AIPA is going to ask the Director of Education to immediately intervene in the matter otherwise the parents/students would stage a peaceful demonstration on Monday 24 October 2011 at 4 pm in front of his office at Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Delhi-54.Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-39420054733478258582009-12-04T05:22:00.000-08:002009-12-04T05:33:08.276-08:00DEMAND OF NATIONAL LAW ON THE LINES OF TAMIL NADU SCHOOLS (REGULATION OF COLLECTION OF FEE) ACT, 2009All India Parents Association (AIPA)<br />Agarwal Bhavan, G.T. RoadTis Hazari, Delhi-110054<br /><br /> Dear Parents/Parents Associations,<br /><br /><br />It is interesting to note that the parents all over the country have raised voices against inaction on the part of the State Governments to check the menace of commercialization of education in unaided private schools. In 1997, on the pretext of 5th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools in Delhi increased fee and other charges ranging from 40% to 400%. This gave rise to unrest amongst the middle class parents and the parents organized themselves against the arbitrary fee hike by the unaided private schools. Needless to say that a PIL was filed in 1997 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was decided on 30.10.1998 in favour of the parents. The High Court laid down the criteria and guidelines of fixing a reasonable fee structure in an unaided private school. The High Court also held that the Government is not only empowered but also has a duty to regulate fee of such schools to prevent commercialization of education and exploitation of parents/students. The schools filed appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the High Court decision which was dismissed on 27.04.2004. The schools took another opportunity through filing a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of Supreme Court decision of 27.04.2004. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also dismissed the review petition on 07.08.2009.<br /><br /><br />In 2008, on the pretext of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools all over the country hiked fee and other charges exorbitantly and arbitrarily while Central and State Governments were just mute spectators to the same. This time, the parents all over the country organized themselves to a larger extent and openly protested against the schools and the governments. The parents associations in many part of the country approached their respective High Courts by way of filing writ petitions. The agitation by the parents in some States led the State Governments to issue certain directives to check the arbitrary fee hike. The school managements have filed writ petitions against such directives in their respect State High Courts. A PIL filed by the Parents in Delhi High Court is being heard on day to day basis and is expected to be concluded soon.<br /><br /><br /> Friends, I wish to submit that though the parents are now better aware of their rights qua unaided private schools but the schools are very adamant to continue to exploit the parents and the students by subjecting them to pay unjustified fee and other charges. The State of Tamil Nadu has enacted Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. Some of the relevant provisions of the said Act are reproduced as under:<br /><br />Section 3(2) - No fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee under this Act shall be collected for admission of pupils to any standard or course of study in a private school.<br /><br />Section 5(1) - The Government shall constitute a committee for the purpose of determination of the fee for admission to any Standard or course of study in private schools. Section 5(2) - The committee shall consist of the following members, namely: -(a) a retired High Court Judge, nominated by the Government. -Chairperson;(b) Director of School Education. -Ex-officio Member;(c) Director of Matriculation Schools. -Ex-officio Member; (d) Director of Elementary Education. -Ex-officio Member; (e) Joint Chief Engineer (Buildings) Public Works Department. -Ex-officio Member;(f) Additional Secretary to Government,School Education Department. -Ex-officio Member Secretary.”Section 6 - (1) The committee shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account the following factors, namely: -(a) the location of the private school; (b) the available infrastructure;(c) the expenditure on administration and maintenance;(d) the reasonable surplus required for the growth and development of the private school;(e) any other factors as may be prescribed.<br /><br /> (2) The committee shall on determining the fee leviable by a private school, communicate its decision to the school concerned.<br /><br />(3) Any private school aggrieved over the decision of the committee shall file their objection before the committee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision of the committee.<br /><br />(4) The committee shall consider the objection of the private school and pass orders within thirty days from the date of receipt of such objection.<br /><br />(5) The orders passed by the committee shall be final and binding on the private school for three academic years. At the end of the sad period, the private school would be at liberty to apply for revision.<br /><br />(6) The committee shall indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.<br /><br /> Section 7 –The powers and function of the committee shall be: -(a) to determine the fee to be collected by private school;(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by it or fixed by the Government, as the case may be. If the committee, after obtaining the evidence and explanation from the management of the private school or aided school concerned or from the Government school, comes to the conclusion that the private school or the Government school or aided school has collected fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee or fixed by the Government, as the case may be, it shall recommend to the appropriate competent authority for the cancellation of the recognition or approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course of action as it deems fit in respect of the private school or Government school or aided school.<br /><br />(2) The committee shall have power to: -(a) require each private school to place before the committee the proposed fee structure of such school with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny within such date as may be specified by the committee;<br /><br />(b) verify whether the fee proposed by the private school is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee;<br /><br />(c) approve the fee structure or determine some other fee which can be charged by the private school.<br /><br />(3) The Committee shall have power to: - (a) verify whether the fee collected by the school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and <br /><br /> (b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of excess fee by a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and <br /><br /> (c) to recommend to the Central Board of Secondary Education for disaffiliation of the school, if it comes to a conclusion that the school has collected excess fee.(4) The committee shall have the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, and shall, for the purpose of making any inquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely: - (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; <br /> (b) the discovery and production of any document;<br /> (c) the receipt of evidence on affidavits; <br /> (d) the issuing of any commission for the examination of witness. <br /><br /> Section 8 - The Government may regulate the maintenance of accounts by the private schools in such manner as may be prescribed.<br /><br />Section 9 - (1) Whoever contravenes the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. <br /> Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years.<br /><br />(2) The person convicted under this section shall refund to the pupil from whom the excess fee was collected in contravention of this Act, such excess fee. <br /><br /><br /> It appears that the Tamil Nadu Act is addressing parents concerns to a larger extent. However, the application of the said Act is limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. In other States, practically, there are no laws to deal with the fee hike problems. All India Parents Association (AIPA) has since long been demanding a Central Law to deal with the issue of commercialization in unaided private schools but the Central Government has not taken any step in this regard so far. It is the need of the hour that all the parents/parents bodies all over the country should write to the Prime Minister and the HRD Union Minister demanding immediate enactment of a Central Law, may be on the lines of the Tamil Nadu Act to check the commercialization of education in unaided private schools all over the country. We can also plan to hold a massive demonstration at Jantar Mantar at New Delhi in this regard sometimes in January, 2010.<br /><br /><br />Last but not the least, we should not forget that while fighting against the exploitation of the parents/students by the unaided private schools, we have to continue our fight for the up gradation of the standard of education in very government school to the minimum level of kendriya Vidayalays (Central Schools). Contact at <a href="mailto:juristashok@gmail.com">juristashok@gmail.com</a>. <br /><br />With regards, <br /><br />Ashok Agarwal, Advocate<br />President, AIPA<br />M-09811101923<br />30.11.2009Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-41330152663010086822009-12-04T05:16:00.000-08:002009-12-04T05:20:07.210-08:00NEED OF NATIONAL LAW TO CHECK ARBITRARY SCHOOL FEE HIKETo<br /> 1. Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India Race Course Road, New Delhi<br /> 2. Hon’ble the Human Resource Development Minister, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001<br /> 3. Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament, 10, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. <br /><br />Sub:- Demand for National Law to check commercialization of education in unaided private schools<br /><br />Sir,<br /><br />It is really a matter of great concern that all our private unaided schools hiked fee and other charges arbitrarily and it has become very difficult for the middle class parents to afford the exorbitant school fees. The schools are indulging in commercialization of education with impunity. It is all against the constitution guarantee to every child of free and compulsory elementary education. There is a need of National Law to check the menace of commercialization of education by the unaided private schools.<br /><br />Slowly and gradually good education and good schooling is becoming the prerogative of the rich people only and the children of middle class family will be deprive of it. No matter that school is running by whom but no one should be allowed to commercialize the same and exploit hapless parents and the students. You are therefore very humbly requested to please pay your attention to this side of education system and take some strict action against these schools. Regulation of fee hike is of utmost importance so as to prevent commercialization of education and to provide maximum opportunities to the children.<br /><br />State of Tamil Nadu has recently enacted Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 with a view to check commercialization of education in the schools. No other State in the country has legislation to deal with this problem. The problem is country-wide.<br /><br />Therefore, I strongly demand for a National Law, may be on lines of Tamil Nadu Schools ( Regulation of Collection of Fee ) Act 2009, be enacted by the Parliament to save the hapless parents from exploitation at the hands of greedy unaided private schools.<br /><br /> Yours faithfully, <br /> Ms. Sanjeeda Khurana, Advocate,<br />H-5, Radhey Puri, Near Krishna Nagar,Delhi-110051<br />M-981006585103.12.2009 <br /><br /> Copy to: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate and President All India Parents Association for information.Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-54324895834730179062009-03-22T23:34:00.000-07:002009-03-22T23:36:39.744-07:00SCHOOL LAW HELPLINE<div align="justify"><br /><br />Right to Education Task Force (RETF) is a group of volunteers intervening into the matter of complaints of parents, students and social activists etc. relating to the problems involving violation of child rights being faced by the students/parents with private as well as with government schools primarily in Delhi, and also in other states/union territories of India. The complaints are handled by the legal experts. All services are totally voluntary & free of cost. One can write to RETF at Email: <a href="mailto:socialjurist@socialjurist.com">socialjurist@socialjurist.com</a> and/or to The Convener, Right to Education Task Force, 478-479, Lawyers Chambers, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 (India). Complaints can also be lodged at HELPLINES- 09811101923, 011-23384000, 09868529459.</div><div align="justify"><br /><br />Ashok Agarwal, Advocate<br />Convener, RETF<br />M-09811101923</div>Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-81882413156037260752009-03-07T04:28:00.000-08:002009-03-07T04:34:22.982-08:00PARENTS UNABLE TO PAY FEE OF RS. 6500 - GREEDY SCHOOL DECLINES BROTHER-SISTER TO TAKE ANNUAL EXAMINATION<div align="left">07.03.2009<br /><br />To, <br />The Director of Education<br />Government of N.C.T of Delhi<br />Old Secretariat Building<br />Civil Lines, Delhi-110054<br /><br />Sub: Parents unable to pay RS. 6500 – Greedy school declines brother-sister to take annual examination<br /><br />Dear Sir,<br /><br />That Mr. B.S Kapoor and Mrs. Meenu Kapoor (M: 9313506686) r/o C-32, Hardev Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 84, parents of master Abhishek Kapoor and Kumari Heena Kapoor, students of classes VI & IV of Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084 (M : 9212205870), have personally complained to me that since they were unable to pay a sum of Rs. 6500 ( arrears on account of fee hike + books charges) to the school, the schools’ Principal kept both of their wards out from taking annual examinations which started on the 5th of March 2009. Inspite of the fact that the parents promised to pay the said sum of Rs. 6500 to the school, before they were provided with annual report cards, the greedy school Principal did not listen to them at all. These students have already missed three exams and if this state of affairs continues anymore, they would also miss the remaining exams which would end on 17.03.2009.</div><div align="left"><br /><br />The parents’ economic condition is very bad and the total family monthly income is not more than Rs. 5000. The said conduct of the school leaves no doubt that the said school has been indulging in commercialization of education. The basic legal philosophy of philanthropy and community service behind running the school has been completely violated. Unfortunately, the Government of Delhi is a silent spectator and has miserably failed to fulfill the constitutional mandate of free and good quality education in the schools. In the absence of good quality Government schools, the hapless parents are forced to send their wards to fee charging private schools and to part with a substantial portion of their income.</div><div align="left"><br /><br />It is the pious duty of the Government to ensure that no child is victimized, harassed, tortured and deprived of its Right to Education. </div><div align="left"><br /><br />It is, therefore, requested that immediate action may be taken in this matter with an intimation to the undersigned.</div><div align="left"><br /><br />With regards<br /><br />(Ashok Agarwal)<br />Advocate<br />Advisor, Social Jurist<br />Mobile - 9811101923<br /><br /><br /><br />Copy to: Principal, Moorti Devi Public School, A2/21 Block II, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi – 110084, for information and necessary action please.</div>Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-30672356943336005642009-02-15T21:02:00.000-08:002009-02-15T21:03:25.692-08:00Parents protest school fee hike<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Sunit Dhawan</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Tribune News Service</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Gurgaon, February 15</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Hundreds of parents of school-going children staged a protest demonstration here today against certain private schools’ move to hike the tuition fee of students. They marched in protest against from the local Ram Lila Ground to the deputy commissioner’s camp office, where they submitted a memorandum to be forwarded to the Haryana Governor, Chief Minister and Education Minister.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Ashok Agarwal, president, All-India Parents Association asserted that the apex court had clearly told the state governments to ensure the provision of education to children as it was their fundamental right.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">“Still, there is no proper system in place to check or control the functioning of the privately managed schools and other educational institutions,” he said.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Vashisht Kumar Goyal, president, Millennium Parents Association, Gurgaon, maintained that the government should set up an education commission to regulate the functioning of the private schools once and for all.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">“It is high time that the state authorities clarified and implemented a proper education policy which also covers the private schools,” he maintained.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Terming the move on fee hike by certain private schools “illegal and unconstitutional”, The protesting parents stressed that in the absence of a well-defined regulatory mechanism, the private school managements were free to take decisions on their own.</span></div><div align="justify"><br /><a href="http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090216/delhi.htm#3"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090216/delhi.htm#3</span></a></div>Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-3370121501787459082009-01-26T03:35:00.000-08:002009-01-26T03:38:01.074-08:00LAWYERS MEET ON FEE HIKE IN UNAIDED SCHOOLSDear Friends,<br /><br />We are all silent witness to the arbitrary and exorbitant fee hike every year in all the unaided recognized private schools in Delhi. The schools as usual have hiked fee at the rate of more than 10% in the beginning of the current academic year of 2008-2009. Now, in the mid-year of this academic year, the schools are proposing to further hike the fee at the rate of 70% to 100% with effect from 01.04.2008 plus arrears for nearly 32 months ranging between Rs. 10, 000/- to Rs. 30, 000/- per student on the pretext of sixth pay commission recommendations. Some of the schools have already enforced the proposed fee hike in violation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh (AIR 1999 Delhi 124 DB).<br /><br />It is unfortunate that the Government of Delhi which is not only empowered by law but has also a constitutional and a statutory duty to check the menace of commercialization of education by the unaided recognized private schools has always remained a passive spectator. We all know that commercialization of education is legally prohibited and a school charging arbitrary and exorbitant fee is guilty of indulging in commercialization of education.<br /><br />It is submitted that both the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have well settled the principles for determination of fee and other charges by unaided recognized private schools. However, both the Government of Delhi and the Schools are issuing misleading public statements resulting in utter confusion amongst the parents/students.<br /><br />The lawyers as a class is not only affected by such arbitrary and unjustified fee hike but has also a crucial role to fight for the protection of the rights of the parents/students. It is, therefore, decided to hold an informal interactive session of lawyers to discuss the current issue of fee hike in unaided recognized private schools. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate (M-09811101923) who has been consistently advocating the cause of the parents/students since 1997 has agreed to brief the lawyer friends on this hot issue.<br /><br />It is, therefore, requested that you may kindly participate in this informal interactive session of lawyers to be held on Tuesday, 27.01.2009 from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm at Parking Lot, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, opposite State Bank of India, Delhi-110054.<br /><br />With regards,<br /><br />Kusum Sharma, Advocate, President, Social Jurist<br />Mob- 9818026552<br /><br />Dinesh Rohilla, Advocate, General Secretary,<br />Faith Academy Parents’ Association<br />Mob- 9268130817<br />25.01.2009<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />LAWYERS FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATIONAdv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-87487569929984764832009-01-24T00:54:00.001-08:002009-01-24T00:56:33.818-08:00FEE HIKE - GOVT MUST IMPLEMENT HIGH COURT RULINGHow any public school in Delhi can seek fee hike without first getting their financial records from 1996-97 and onwards examined by a statutory committee as per the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 30.10.1998 in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh case? Though the Bansal Committee report is yet not available for comments, but what is gathered from the news reports is that the Bansal Committee has recommended that tuition fee of not more than Rs. 500/- and arrears to be collected from students should not exceed Rs. 4500/- per head. Of course, the Committee has suggested that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of private schools in the city and their financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike.<br /><br /><br />It may be noted that what ever tuition fee is increased, it will automatically increase development fee at the rate of 10 percent of the increased tuition fee. If Re. 500/- is increased in the tuition fee, Re. 50/- would be automatically increased in the Development fee, meaning thereby that the actual fee increased is not Re. 500/- but Rs.550/-. The Bansal Committee’s suggestion that a statutory committee be appointed to monitor the reserve funds of the private schools in the city and financial records be reviewed before approving any fee hike is in the line of 1998 directives given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the recommendation for increase of any fee without examination of accounts by the statutory committee appears to be self contradictory. <br /><br /><br /> No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.<br /><br /><br /> It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-<br /> “66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.<br /> 67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”<br /> That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.<br /><br /><br /> It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.<br /> It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.<br /><br /><br /> I appeared before the Bansal Committee on behalf of the Social Jurist and the Delhi Abhbhavak Mahasangh to place the parents’ view point. It was submitted that the Committee has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It was also submitted that if the Committee did not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.<br /><br />After the Bansal Committee has submitted its report to the Government, the ball is now in the court of the Government. The Government has so far failed to implement the directives of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also to protect the hapless parents/students. It is time to wait and watch.<br /><br />By Advocate Ashok Agarwal<br /><br /> (15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: <a href="mailto:ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com">ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com</a> )Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-51749184120812284692009-01-24T00:43:00.000-08:002009-01-24T00:44:13.357-08:00MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL ILLEGALLY HIKES FEETo<br />The Director of Education,<br />Govt. of NCT of Delhi,<br />Old Secretariat Building,<br />Civil Lines, Delhi 54<br /><br />Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School<br /><br />Dear Sir,<br /><br />We have the honour to bring to your kind notice that the hapless parents of the students studying in Mount Carmel School, Anand Niketan A-21, New Delhi- 110021 have complained to me in writing that the management of the said school has issued a demand notice dated 15.12.2008 to all the parents of the students of the school whereby they have been directed to shell out thousands of rupees towards arrears of enhanced fees i.e. Rs. 550/- per month with effect from 1.4.2008 on account of increase in salary bill of the teachers due to implementation of sixth pay commission. Copies of the parents’ complaint dated 19.1.2009 and school’s demand notice dated 15.12.2008 are enclosed hereto for your ready reference.<br /><br />The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -<br /><br />“Mount Carmel School<br />Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education<br />A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021<br /><br />December 15, 2008<br />Dear Parent,<br /><br />Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.<br /><br />We have worked out the increase in the salary bill which comes to approx. 12 lakhs p.m. But dividing this by the full fee paying students i.e. 1944 we find a need for an increase of approx. Rs. 620/- p.m. to meet the current requirements. However, it has been decided to increase the tuition fees currently by 30% only i.e. Rs. 550/- only for the financial year 2008-2009.<br /><br />Enclosed please find bill for 4th quarter at the new rate plus arrears of quarter 1,2 & 3. Fee for 4th quarter may be paid by 23rd January 2009 and the arrears be cleared latest be 28th February 2009 before the start of 2nd term examination. For class X and XII kindly clear dues by February 20th, 2009 before collection of Admit Card.<br /><br />There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.<br /><br />With best wishes,<br />Yours sincerely,<br />Sd/-<br />Dr. V.K. Williams<br />Principal”<br /><br /><br />It is further brought to your notice that the school had earlier hiked the tuition fee on 1.4.2008 from Rs. 1650/- to Rs. 1800/- per month plus development fund from Rs. 165/- to Rs. 180/- per month (more than 10%). In terms of the aforesaid school notice dated 15.12.2008, the school has further hiked the tuition fee from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2350/- per month plus development fee from Rs. 180/- to Rs. 235/- per month (30%) with effect from 1.4.2008. Therefore, the total fee hiked is more than 40% in the current academic year of 2008-2009.<br /><br />It is submitted that the school has hiked the fee without following the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with the directions having been given by the honourable Delhi High Court on 30.10.1998 in case of Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh v. Union of India and Ors. The parents are being forced by the school to deposit the fee at the increased rates as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.<br /><br />That the aforesaid action and conduct of the school is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to commercialisation of education and warrants serious action. The fee hiked by the school is otherwise also unjust and unreasonable.<br /><br />It is, therefore, requested that appropriate legal action on urgent basis may be taken against the school thereby preventing the school to charge fees and other charges from the parents at the increased rates in terms of the school notice dated 15.12.2008. It is also requested that the school may be directed to refund the access amounts to the parents who have already deposited with school the fee and other charges as per school notice dated 15.12.2008.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />With regards,<br /><br /><br /><br />Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate<br />Advisor, Social Jurist.<br />M- 09811101923Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-74777099110806045242008-10-31T00:40:00.000-07:002008-10-31T00:45:04.625-07:00DANGERS OF FEE HIKE<div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">Indian Express, New Delhi October 30, 2008 carried a news report of Aneesha Mathur amongst others saying, “ A Group of schools in East Delhi are opposing the fee hike proposed for private, unaided schools across the Capital. They fear a large number of students will drop out if the fees are raised.” Through its box, the news report highlights as to who says what, “What Trans-Yamuna schools say-Students in most smaller private schools come from families not that economically well-off and might pull out if fees go up, Parents say cannot afford raised fees since they might go as high as Rs.3, 000 per month, Schools say fee hike would mean raise in tax to MCD. Result: Many would be forced to down shutters What opponents say-Hike is necessary to pay teachers as per 6th Pay Commission recommendations, Parents who can’t afford private schooling should opt for govt schools What education department says-Formed a committee to look into issue, Will look at issues of all concerned and out report in month’s time”.<br /><br />This press report gives rise to several vital questions. (i) Are some schools seriously opposing the move of some other schools to hike the fees? (ii) Are unaided private schools entitled to levy fee on the parents/students? (iii) How fees are required to be determined? (iv) What are the remedies available to aggrieved parents? (v) What are the dangers of fee hike?<br /><br />It looks very fine that some schools claiming them to be smaller schools are opposing the move of some other schools to hike the fees. In reality, it is nothing but a gimmick. It is well known that all the unaided private schools have been indulging in commercialization of education despite the fact that commercialization of education is legally prohibited. It is totally irrelevant whether it is a small school or a big one. All are sailing in the same boat. All these schools are getting benefit of income tax exemptions. Most of these schools are on public lands allotted to them on highly concessional rates. It is shocking to read the comments of one of such schools’ management saying “Those who can’t afford private schooling will have to shift their children to a government school”. These comments are enough to understand the real intention of these schools.<br /><br />Establishment of an unaided private school is based on four legal pillars, (i) Philanthropy (ii) Community service (iii) No-profit and (iv) No commercialization. It is interesting to note that every child up to the age of 14 years has a fundamental right to free education. The private schools being the extended hands of the State are equally obliged to provide free education to all the students at least up to the age of 14 years. In fact, this should have happened. However, keeping in view the fact that unaided private schools need finances to meet their expenses on the salaries of the employees and other day-to-day expenses, law permits them to levy fees on the parents/students.<br /><br />The unaided schools are entitled to levy fees on the parents/students, but the question is what would be the amount of fees. Are they entitled to levy fee exorbitantly, arbitrarily and unjustly. It is well settled law that unaided schools are not entitled to levy fee exorbitantly, arbitrarily and unjustly. If they do so, it would amount to indulging in commercialization of education, which is legally impermissible. A Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court way back on 31.10.1998 in Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh case (AIR 1999 Delhi 124) summarized the conclusions as under: -<br /><br />“i) It is the obligation of the Administrator and/or Director of Education to prevent commercialization and exploitation in private unaided schools including schools run by minorities.<br /><br />ii) The tuition fee and other charges are required to be fixed in a validly constituted meeting giving opportuinity to the representatives of Parent Teacher Association and Nominee of Director of Education to place their view points.<br /><br />iii) No permission from Director of Education is necessary before or after fixing tuition fee. In case, however, such fixation is found to be irrational and arbitrary there are ample power under the Act and the Rules to issue directions to school to rectify it before resorting to harsh measures. The question of commercialization of education and exploitation of parents by individual schools can be authoritatively determined on thorough examination of accounts and other records of each school.<br /><br />iv) The Act and the Rules prohibit transfer of funds from the school to society or from one school to another.<br /><br />v) The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society.<br /><br />vi) The inspection of the schools, audit of the accounts and compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules by private recognized unaided schools could have prevented the present state of affairs.<br /><br />vii) The authorities /Director of Education has failed in its obligation to get the accounts of private recognized unaided schools audited from time to time.<br /><br />viii) The schools/society can take voluntary donations not connected with the admission of the ward.<br /><br />ix) On the peculiar facts of these petitions there is no per se illegality in issue of the impugned circular dated 10th September 1997.<br /><br />x) An independent statutory Committee, by amendment of law, if necessary, deserves to be constituted to go into factual matters and adjudicate disputes which may arise in future in the matter of fixation of tuition fee and other charges.<br /><br />xi) The Government should consider extending Act and Rules with or without modifications to all schools from Nursery onward.”<br /><br />The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern School case (2004) 5 SCC 583 upheld the validity of the above decision of the Delhi High Court. In simple words, it can be said that there are parameters for determining just and reasonable fee. The parents are entitled to know from the school as to how and in what way the school has spent the fee charged from them. As an illustration, if a school charges towards purchase of computers and depreciation on computers, the same would be illegal. No school is entitled to charge on account of capital expenditure. School is entitled to charge only fee for use of the computers. No school is entitled to accumulate surpluses. Accumulation of surpluses would be a strong indicator of commercialization of education.<br /><br />As indicated above, the government is not only empowered but also has a duty to check commercialization in education. An aggrieved parent can make a complaint to the government against the school and the government is obliged to look into the complaint and take appropriate action against the school. If government fails to do so, the aggrieved parent can approach the Civil Court or the High Court seeking directions against the government to take appropriate action in the matter of their complaint against the school. The aggrieved parent may also simultaneously make use of the right to information seeking information from the government as to what action has been taken on their complaint against the school. The parents can also make such complaint jointly.<br /><br />No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of the 6th pay commission recommendations, schools should not be allowed to exploit the hapless parents/students. It would be wrong to think that all those children attending these unaided private schools are the children of the rich. Dissatisfied with the standard of education in the government schools, the middle class and even lower middle class parents are compelled to send their wards to these fee charging private schools. Not less than 25% of their income is spent to meet the basic educational needs of their wards. Against the constitutional right of free education, the parents have to shell out a major part of their hard earned money to provide education to their wards through these unaided private schools. Every year thousands of parents unwillingly shift their wards from these schools to government schools, as they were unable to afford school fee any more. These schools are already charging exorbitant fee and other charges from the parents/students. The present fee hike proposals, if materialized, would inevitably lead to pushing out at least 15 to 20 percent students from these schools. This is nothing but malpractice on the part of these so-called charitable educational institutions. Their sole philosophy behind running these schools is to earn maximum profits. The government must by law ensure that once a child is admitted in an unaided private school, the school shall not push such child out on the ground that his/her parents are no longer capable to afford the school fee. If a school is unable to adhere to such condition, it has no right to exist. The government must rise to the occasion to implement common school system in the entire country that alone can lead to equality of status and of opportunity to all the citizens of this country and would also save the hapless parents/students from being exploited by these unaided schools.<br />By Ashok Agarwal, Advocate<br />(author can be contacted at <a href="mailto:ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com">ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com</a>)</div>Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-858419506508598879.post-48623712059562177872008-10-30T00:44:00.000-07:002008-11-21T00:06:59.101-08:00BANSAL COMMITTEE ON FEE HIKE - SJ DEMANDS COMPLIANCE OF DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER OF 30.10.1998<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">To,<br /><br />The Secretary (Education)<br />Government of N.C.T of Delhi<br />Old Secretariat Building<br />Civil Lines, Delhi-54<br /><br />Sub: Bansal Committee on Fee hike – SJ demands compliance of Delhi High Court Order of 30.10.1998 <br /><br />Dear Madam,<br /><br />We have come to know from news reports appeared today in newspapers that the Govt. of Delhi has constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri S.L. Bansal, IAS (retd.) to look into the fee hike demand of the unaided recognized private schools of Delhi in view of the 6th pay commission recommendations. We welcome the same. No body can dispute that both teaching and non-teaching staff must get their due benefits and emoluments. However, under the guise of revision of pay scales of teaching and non-teaching staff pursuant to the 6th pay commission recommendations, the schools should not be allowed to exploit hapless parents/students.<br /><br />It is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by an interim order dated 11.12.1997 in the matter of PIL filed by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh permitted the schools to increase fees upto 40% in the academic year 1997-98. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court finally decided the matter on 30th October 1998 whereby amongst issuing several directions, the Hon’ble Court appointed a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.) for the period covered by the Delhi Government order dated 10th September 1997 upto the start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. The relevant paras 66 and 67 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-<br /><br />“66. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission of counsel for the parties and aforenoticed detail facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period covered by impugned order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, to look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, on facts would be justified or not. Eliminating the element of commercialization and in the light of this decision, the committee would determine fee and other charges payable by students of individual schools. We do not think that it would be desirable at present to permit any further increase than what has already been permitted by order dated 11.12.1997. We would, therefore, extend the aforequoted order dated 11.12.1997 till decision of cases of individual schools by the Committee appointed by this judgment.<br /><br />67. We, accordingly, appoint a Committee comprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired judge of this court as Chairperson with power to nominate two persons- one with the knowledge of accounts and second from field of education in consultation with Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi to decide matters of fee and other charges leviable by individual schools in terms of this decision. ………”<br /><br />That pursuant to the said directions, Delhi Govt. announced the constitution of a committee under Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal (retd.). Due to non co-operation both from the schools and the Education Department, Justice Duggal without completing the work entrusted to her by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, submitted its report on July 31, 1999 to the Government of NCT of Delhi.<br /><br />It is submitted that because of the interim order dated 11.12.1997 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the parents had to shell out an additional sum of approximately Rs.400 Crores every year since the academic session 1997-98. In addition to that, the schools have been increasing fee and other charges every year since the academic year 1999-2000.<br /><br />It is submitted that the cases of individual schools as desired by the Hon’ble High Court have not yet been decided either by Ms. Justice Duggal Committee or any other committee. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the schools were not entitled to increase fee and other charges till the cases of individual schools are decided. Therefore, the increase of the fee and other charges by the schools from 1999-2000 to date is in clear violation of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.<br /><br />It is submitted that the Committee headed by Shri S.L.Bansal, IAS (retd.) constituted by the Government of NCT of Delhi to look into the fee hike demand of the unaided recognized private schools of Delhi in view of 6th Pay Commission Recommendation has to first look into the cases of the individual schools and determine, on examination of record and accounts etc. whether increase of tuition fee and other charges, for the period covered by govt. order dated 10th September 1997 upto start of academic session in the year 1999, on facts would be justified or not, as directed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 30.10.1998 before proceeding further in the matter. It is respectfully submitted that if the Committee does not do the aforesaid exercise, great injustice would be caused to the parents/students of Delhi.<br /><br />You are therefore, requested to bring the aforementioned facts to the notice of the Bansal Committee in order to safeguard the interest of the hapless parents/students of Delhi.<br /><br />With regards,<br /><br /><br />(Ashok Agarwal)<br />Advocate<br />Advisor, Social Jurist<br />Mobile – 9811101923</span></div>Adv. Ashok Agarwalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01652382493000903864noreply@blogger.com1