NEW DISCOVERY TO DEFEAT PROVISION OF EWS UNDER RTE AND HIGH COURT ORDER

Undertaking presidium Ashok Vihar

Undertaking Ryan International Rohini

                                        UNDERTAKING OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT SHOWS SUDDEN DROP IN NUMBER OF SEATS FOR CLASSES KG AND CLASS I RECENTLY COVERED UNDER RTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF E.W.S. AFTER RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AND D.H.C. ORDER.
          Two undertakings mentioned here is a sample of hundreds of undertaking we obtained under RTI Act 2005 form directorate of education which reveals the real picture of recent E.W.S. drive started by DOE. Earlier schools had reduced the seats at entry level class to defeat the provisions of EWS/D.G admission under RTE Act 2009. Social jurist moved Delhi high court for direction to protect the provision in favor of downtrodden group of society. High court strongly pulled the DOE which has later issued show cause notice to almost 70% of recognized unaided private school and assured the petitioner and court to take appropriate measures for compliance of clause 4(b) of DOE circular which mentioned earlier that the total enrollment in entry level class will not be less the highest enrollment of any other class in the school. when court pulled the DOE about their inefficiency towards compliance of their own circular then instead of taking any action against erring schools DOE came with amendment in circular on 28.02.2012 mentioning total enrollment in entry level class will not be less then the highest enrollment of last three year in entry level class only. This amendment came to protect the malafide of the unaided school as DOE was well aware that this practice of reducing seat started in 2007 when effective EWS started through an order in social jurist P.I.L hence last 3 year was safe side for school as the device was continues for last 4 years.The amendment is vague as it makes the violation for three year legal.It will encourage the school for violation of provision for three continues year then automatically it will create legal right in favor of violator.
     The nexus of strong school lobby, DOE and our Govt. of NCT of Delhi succeed to make all the arrangements to defeat the entire provision of EWS admission but a new development taken place by the interpretation of RTE ACT by supreme court in W.P.(c) 95 of 2010 where society for unaided schools of Rajsthan challenged the validity of act where supreme court not only uphold the validity but interpreted the section 12(a) (c) and held that the EWS admission is in class-I and also in pre school if run by school . This interpretation changed the entire provision settled in favor of schools through DOE and we demanded DOE for notification for clarification in the light of supreme court judgement. The DOE requested clarification from Ministry of H.R.D. Govt. of India which was unwarranted and only for the purpose of passing over the bucks to some other agency with intention to delay the process for current session where Delhi High court had already directed DOE to ensure the admission up to 30th of June 2012. SOCIAL JURIST moved an application in above mentioned writ petition W.P(c) 8434 of 2011 and High court settled the issue with remark that the clarification was unwarranted and issued guideline where EWS admission is allowed up to class I and it has been also mentioned that these guidelines are in consonance with Supreme court judgement. It had been directed to DOE to complete the entire process before 30th of June and DOE asked for undertaking from schools about the seats they have in classes up to class-I. The entire process has been politicized by publishing full page advertisements in several newspaper. seats at entry level was also published but the powerful school lobby approached their political godfathers and DOE issued a new guideline for undertaking where new column about new admission was made and later it has been advertised that earlier advertisement which was based on undertaking from school and Education officer was wrong and new seats has been declared which neither considers 4(b) before amendment nor after amendment. In HC order it had been mentioned that increase in number of seats will not be permissible after entry level class but schools are rapidly admitting students in class-2 and above classes which is out of domain of RTE for the purpose of RTE.

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.
Mob- 8826456565
email- attorney.supremecourt@gmail.com