How 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.
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.
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.
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:-
“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.
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. ………”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
(15.01.2009 -author can be contacted at email: ashokagarwal1952@gmail.com )
Saturday, January 24, 2009
MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL ILLEGALLY HIKES FEE
To
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
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.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
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.
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.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
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.
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.
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.
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.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
The Director of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
Subject- Illegal and Arbitrary fee hike by Mount Carmel School
Dear Sir,
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.
The contents of the above referred school notice dated 15.12.2008 are reproduced as under: -
“Mount Carmel School
Recognised by Delhi Administration & Affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
A-21, Anand Niketan, New Delhi- 110021
December 15, 2008
Dear Parent,
Kindly refer to our notice dated 7th April’08 and 27th September’08.
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.
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.
There will be no late fee fine charged upto 28th February 2009.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Dr. V.K. Williams
Principal”
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.
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.
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.
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.
With regards,
Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist.
M- 09811101923
Friday, October 31, 2008
DANGERS OF FEE HIKE
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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: -
“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.
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.
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.
iv) The Act and the Rules prohibit transfer of funds from the school to society or from one school to another.
v) The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society.
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.
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.
viii) The schools/society can take voluntary donations not connected with the admission of the ward.
ix) On the peculiar facts of these petitions there is no per se illegality in issue of the impugned circular dated 10th September 1997.
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.
xi) The Government should consider extending Act and Rules with or without modifications to all schools from Nursery onward.”
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.
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.
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.
By Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
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?
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.
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.
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: -
“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.
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.
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.
iv) The Act and the Rules prohibit transfer of funds from the school to society or from one school to another.
v) The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society.
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.
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.
viii) The schools/society can take voluntary donations not connected with the admission of the ward.
ix) On the peculiar facts of these petitions there is no per se illegality in issue of the impugned circular dated 10th September 1997.
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.
xi) The Government should consider extending Act and Rules with or without modifications to all schools from Nursery onward.”
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.
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.
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.
By Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
(author can be contacted at ashokagarwal1952@hotmail.com)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
BANSAL COMMITTEE ON FEE HIKE - SJ DEMANDS COMPLIANCE OF DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER OF 30.10.1998
To,
The Secretary (Education)
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-54
Sub: Bansal Committee on Fee hike – SJ demands compliance of Delhi High Court Order of 30.10.1998
Dear Madam,
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.
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:-
“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.
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. ………”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With regards,
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile – 9811101923
The Secretary (Education)
Government of N.C.T of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-54
Sub: Bansal Committee on Fee hike – SJ demands compliance of Delhi High Court Order of 30.10.1998
Dear Madam,
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.
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:-
“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.
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. ………”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With regards,
(Ashok Agarwal)
Advocate
Advisor, Social Jurist
Mobile – 9811101923
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
