MODERN DRONACHARYA AND EKLABYA IN INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM

Who says Education is Charity I think it is most lucrative business in the India where one can use the public resorces and privileges to run their business and earn tax free black money with the help of Govt agency. our acadmician who are so called expert in the field of education are also very much influenced by our history specially dronacharya who want all respect and renumeration but prefer to teach their Arjuna and Duryadhan but not Eklabya.In mahabharta only Dhritarastra was supporting this kind of education but now our three pillars of Democracy and sometime fourth also practically supports this system which is for their benifit as the elite class is benifitted from this cruel system which protects the private schooling system in present manner.

  The system of private schooling is meant only for elite class and sometime it surprises us when the policy makers and courts talks abut feasibilty and affordability of this private system as the middle class interest is only discussed. Several state government allotted the land at throw away price to the so called charitable societies to perform their so called Charity. The annual returns of the societies showing that the societies are diverting fund to purchase luxury cars to perform their charity. Most of schools secured their interest by taking huge loans from the banks by mortgaging the public property. Asstets are crated for society and the underprivileged group are deprived from their share in freeship admission to balence the interst of middle class. Our pillars of democracy permits the autonomy on the ground that the govt. system is failed and they have to prserve these traders who is atlest providing education to elite class.

Gandhian thought says that the most deprived has the first right on the Public resources but our nehru model rejects the gandhian thought and it had proved that only the elite class of society has their right on the resourses of the country. Verious movements including Anna movement and kejriwal aam aadmi movement also fights for middle class which want to exploit the public resources including the share of underprivileged group of society without paying any bribe to government officers.
       

BASIC PROBLEM ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF RTE IN NURSERY ADMISSION

Basic problem for implementation of RTE: - Parliament legislated a bivalent legislation Right of children to free and compulsory education Act 2009, A child centric Act but our system is habituated to see every thing in education in a school centric way. It is similar to use concave mirror in side mirror of a vehicle which produces inverted image and causes big accident for parents seeking admission in nursery.  To understand the nursery admission scheme one had to see this child centric act by taking child as center but unfortunately wee see everything school centric.

     To understand provisions of admission under RTE Act 2009 one have to understand the provisions of this act starting from section 9(d) which states about child mapping by local authority which includes all children below 14 years irrespective of economic or social background. If we read this provision with rule 10 specially sub clause 4(c) then it is clear that the act deals with pre primary class also. Section 11 is next step and some part of section 11 is included in section 12(1)(c) proviso where 25% seats are allocated to EWS parents and remaining 75% to open category where parent can’t claim re-reimbursement from government. Legislature was well aware with the non availability of Pre School in government school and 25% under EWS can’t feed all children in the age group. There are several economic constraints hence it was not included in the definition of child as the extended definition of child could impose extra burden on government to start pre school education for all children hence a suggestion to government has been given but it does not means that the act does not deals with admission below 6 in private school under open category admission. We must understand that the aim of the act is inclusive education and segregation is not permissible then how the act could include EWS by excluding students admitted under open seats category.

       Section 13 of the act is the penal provisions which strengthen the RTE Act 2009 which must be read for all children covered under provisions of section 9(d), Section 11 or any other section of the act which includes child defines under definition part of the act. If we read strict definition of the child defined between age 6 and 14 then it will make the entire object of the act redundant. Our legislature can’t have the view to limit section 13 between 6 to 14 only as it will allow capitation legal for children whom local authority sends in neighborhood school. In the city like Delhi where admission is allowed at entry level only then section 13 which apply at the time of admission only will be a redundant provision. It will allow corporal punishment permissible for children below 6 years and will be restrictive after 6 years. If a child admitted below 6 years can be holded in nursery class for several years but a child after 6 will not be holded by school.

       Provision under section 9(d) solves the issue about address proof hence it has not been dealt under the act but section 14 deals with birth certificate and removes the barrier by allowing affidavit.

       Parent has choice of admission in some other schools of their choice but not at the cost of children for which that school is neighborhood school. If a school has catered all in neighborhood has catered then only choice of parent seeking admission in the school can be considered. The choice of parent is not a right and subject to seats available after admitting all students in neighborhood. It is possible that more then one school is in the neighborhood then the choice of parent can be considered under neighborhood and in the case of more application then seats the draw of lots can be used as a random method.

NURSERY SCHOOL AND PLAY SCHOOL AT PUBLIC LANDLAND :- BIG FRAUD WITH CITIZENS

In a recent RTI disclosed mentions that 361 plots has been allotted to charitable societies to establish nursery school in the city despite shortage of land to start the govt school. The land was allotted on the condition that these societies will provide facilities of pre schooling to the residents at affordable rates and in regulated manner and a specific percentage of student will be admitted in the school under fee ship category but neither DDA nor Directorate of Education cared for implementation of scheme and as a result these plots are being commercially used to exploit the parents from general category. Underprivileged group of society can't afford the school fee and there is no alternate smiler facilities in govt school hence permanently depriving them self from the pre schooling. As a result two levels of education starts from very beginning.
    It is very important that Nazul Land can be allotted only on the basis of recommendation from govt agencies to charitable societies supplementing the govt function and in the case of these schools either DOE or MCD could recommend but none of them has any record about details of recommendation. There is no need for recolonization either by DOE or by MCD for pre schooling hence these department do not bother about the land. DDA which is very famous for corrupt practices ends their duty by uploading a list of some societies and that also in such a manner that no one can trace the school. India is single country where two types of pre schooling and elementary education is allowed by our govt. In our great country a child in the age group of 2 is compelled to understand that he/she is born in a poor family. At the age of 2 they are compelled to understand that despite constitutional mediates of   their first share in the resources our corrupt system can't  help them in getting their share in the schools running at public land by so called charitable society.

Khagesh B Jha, Adv.
M- 8826456565      

Unrest on KVS Judgement in so called NGO sector

Unrest on KVS Judgement in so called NGO sector:-   Delhi High court Judgement on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan where court scrapped the KVS guideline on the ground of contrary to RTE Act. KVS had earlier sifted their 22.5 liability very cleverly to the 25% EWS quota hunting two birds in single arrow by adjusting both liability in 25% without any disturbance to babus and leaders. A group of social a

ctivists welcomed this development in social jurist PIL but another group which see the Indian social structure through western eye could not digested it and feel unrest. They feel this judgement against the SC/ST category without any application of mind that Delhi High court did not stopped govt to provide 22.5% if govt decides to carve this from the remaining 75% or additional seats reserved for our member of parliament etc. In a social gathering I have been surprised to see a well known socialite opposing this with some examples of Bihar whether she was sketching mushar community there in satyajeet Ray movie style or some description in European novels which is contrary to the fact. When asked her whether she has visited the place the reply was in negation but still she was insisting me to be agree with her sketching despite my disclosure that I have not only born in the area but grown there also.

Delhi High Cort :- Monkey split of 25% EWS/DG quota under RTE in non permissible

A division bench of Delhi High Court today passed a landmark judgement interpreting section 12(1) (c) and section 35 of RTI Act 2005 and ruled that section 35 can't be used to dilute the provisions of act  itself.  Admission guideline by Kendriya Vidyalaya has been quashed up to extent that the 22.5 % seats for SC/ST can't be carved out from existing 25% Under RTE Act 2005. The court found the admission guideline notified by the Kendriya vidyalaya illegal and directed the KVS to re-frame the guideline in accourdance to the judgement passed by the division bench.
     Present judgement not only protected the beautiful classification of a group consisting all underprivileged group of society but shown to the state governments to restrain them self from monkey split of EWS seats. As of now almost 11 states has sub-classified the EWS/DG mentioned under RTE Act 2009 and applicable in unaided private school. This is a gift by social jurist petitioner to almost one lackh children from EWS category to participate equally for admission under EWS/DG category  in Kendriya Vidyalaya under RTE Act 2009 but another several lakh of EWS student will be benefited for admission in EWS/DG category in above mentioned 11 states.The most important fact emerged from judgement is impressibility of further classification of children by the misuse of section 35 of RTE Act 2009 which addresses several other issues like nursery guidelines where Union of India notified that 25% admission will be through draw of lots and remaining 75% will be admitted as per guideline framed by schools.
      We must salute the vision of Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Social jurist which has filed the petition challenging the guidelines by Kendriya Vidyalaya. Being a member of social jurist and associated with Mr. Agarwal in present petition is really a matter of pride for us.

Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.
M- 8826456565   

EWS STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS A BOON FOR MIDDLE CLASS

It is general perception amongst middle class that EWS admission in unaided private schools are against the interest of fee paying middle class but really it is myth not reality. Inclusion of all class of society is not only beneficial for the social development of children but this inclusion is very helpful to protect from pinching pockets by unaided private school.various RTI information suggest that this EWS has reduced the monopoly of school lobby which was completely unregulated. In the name of privacy they were involved in mismanagement and parents had no option and ultimately they becomes victim of the greedy school management which was involved in all the non permissible activities like profiteering and fraud with the fee paying parents. submission of returns under rule 180 and audit of return remained a formality and DOE never cared about the interest of common citizen of the city.Delhi school education act and rules were regularly misinterpreted for the benefit of the greed of school lobby.
           In a recent RTI reply it has been revealed that a large no of schools had their entry level class pre school or pre primary but in the annual return they mentions class I as entry level class. It means that all the fee collected from the students in pre school or pre primary remains unaccounted. All the expenditures are shown in main school and entire fee from nursery and KG remains with the greedy school management which is undoubtedly black money. This amount goes up to several crores in some of the schools and when we compare it with actual loss of revenue due to EWS students then we can see that this amount is several fold of the amount spent for EWS students. on the basis of this disclosure i have raised a complaint to Justice Anil Dev Singh committee and the committee written a letter to director education while asking details of enrollment and total amount which school collected from these students. This information has been generated in the response of directorate notification in compliance of order passed by Hon'ble delhi high court in a social jurist PIL for EWS students only.
        some media reports suggests about decrease of seats for general category students which is another myth as the notification for EWS controls the reduction of seats at entry level class and as a result seats has been increased in several schools. Prior to EWS no one had idea about actual number of seats and literally there was no regulation for fixation of seats at entry level class and even directorate of education had no law to do so. As a result there was a gap between declared seats and actual number of seats in the school. Undeclared seats were considered as management seats and it was sold for capitation and the same was not available for general category students. RTI information suggests that the schools reduced seats at entry level class just after ganguly committee recommendation in the year 2007. A large no of admission was undeclared in nursery and the same was reflecting in KG where ganuguly committee recommendation was not applicable
        All the above mentioned details are based on RTI information we have obtained from the directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi.        
      
     

MY LETTER TO CHIEF SECRETARY INFORMING A BIG EDUCATION SCAM

To

The chief secretary

Govt. of NCT of Delhi &

Chief Vigilance officer

I.P.Estate Extension

New Delhi- 110002

Sub- Information about a big education scam and submission of relevant evidences with request to order for investigation.

Dear sir

     Undersign procured some important documents under RTI Act 2005 about a large no of unaided private school and found some institutional fraud is played with the citizen of the city. As a sample case I will request you to have a look at annexed docs relevant to Ryan international Rohini sector 25 where in one document which is based on annual return of school which is meant to disclose revenue and expenditure is showing 43 enrolment in the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 ( annex doc namely chart for two years. This document is prepared by officials of zone-XIII of directorate of education on the basis of class wise enrolment shown by school in their annual return and same has been provided to us in a reply of RTI Application. Now I request to have a look on another document which is undertaking by the principal which shows enrolments 152 in pre school, 180 in pre primary and 362 in class I during the session 2010-11 and enrolments 175 in pre school,150 in pre primary and 180 in class I during academic session 2011-12. It makes very clear that in the year 201-11 a total of 649( 692-43) enrolment was concealed and next year a total of 462 (505-43) enrolment was concealed. If we see only the concealments in two years and that also limited to the entry level class up to class I then also total concealments of 1111 enrolment results in more then five crores of unaccounted money in this one school only.

     For the sake of brevity I am not mentioning here all the cases but in brief request you please to compare the documents from enrolment chart to the individual undertakings where it reveals that N.K. Bagrodia public school Rohini concealed there class Pre school and pre primary in both the academic years, Rockfield school Rohini,GD goenka sector 9 and queen merry school Rohini also did the same as N.K.Bagrodia Rohini. In the case of Bal Bharti Rohini the enrolments of the class pre school and pre primary concealed during year 2010-11 and VSPK International Rohini as well as DAV public school Rohini.

     I have earlier discussed the issue with secretary education and submitted a representation for this also but nothing availed. All these documents are available with the officers of directorate and even they had provided the same to us under reply of RTI application but this huge unaccounted money by playing fraud on the innocent people of this city is sufficient to keep the officers of directorate quite as it is impossible that this kind of fraud can be executed without their consent. I have records for a large no of other schools and if it is needed I assure to provide. This investigation will not need so much of human resource as the documents are already available with directorate. Document related with the enrolment is still available in the format of chart with secretary education and someone can easily detect it within few hours but only will power is needed to protect the citizen and that can be done only by your intervention.

    Therefore your intervention is required for direction of registration of F.I.R. either by CBI or EOW of Delhi Police as proper investigation is needed to crack this fraud which is pinching the pockets of the innocent citizens of the city. Thank You.

With Regards

Khagesh B Jha, Adv.

Chamber No 483, Block II

Delhi High Court New Delhi

Mob- 9350456565        

My Letter to Secretary Education suggesting facts to be considered while notifying EWS under land allotment clause

To

The Secretary Education

Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Old Secretariat Building

Civil Lines, Delhi- 110054

Sub- Suggestion for Policy decisions for EWS admission as per Land allotment obligation.

Date 27.09.2012

Sir

 

       You are well aware with the fact that Hon’ble Delhi high court has passed a landmark order interpreting the provisions of RTE ACT 2009 and ruled that the 2009 act does not take away the right under land allotment clause. It is expected from your office to take the policy decisions within eight week from the day order passed by Hon’ble division bench. It is important to mention that the above said order categorically mentions that if some school has higher obligation under allotment clause then your office have to take policy decisions about discharge of that higher obligation. It is also mentioned in the order that your office have to take policy decisions for discharge of obligation by minority schools which is out of ambit of RTE ACT 2009 after the supreme court judgment in W.P.(C) 95 of 2010.   Undersign is associated with this issue for a long time and procured several documents including allotment letters of the schools and want to submit this representation for your kind consideration.

        It is important to understand the history of EWS admission in the private recognized school in the city as the same has been highly appreciated by the parliament during discussion on the bill which later taken the shape of RTE Act 2009. In the GNCT of Delhi Nazul land was allotted to the unaided private school at throw away price to discharge govt. duty to educate the children and as per terms of allotment schools have to provide specific percentage of admission for children whose parents belongs to weaker section. There is diversity in allotment letters where majority of allotment letter creates obligation varying from 20 to 25 percent for weaker section but a few schools whom the land was allotted by other land owing agencies prior to the constitution of DDA mentions that director of education will fix the percentage of free ship.  It has been observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Social Jurist PIL W.P (c) 3156 of 2002 that none of the school complied with their terms of allotment and Hon’ble court has passed an order on 20^th of January 2004 directing Govt. of NCT of Delhi to frame rule through which admission of 1 out of 5 should be ensured for EWS in all classes whether the school at public land or not and it has been directed to take a policy decisions in this regard. Later two committees Prof. Janki Raman Cometee and Prof. Krishna Kumar Committee was constituted and a meeting was called by Hon’ble chief minister having representation from DDA and all other agencies which was involved in the process of utilization of Nazul Land and a policy decision was taken to provide 25% of admission under EWS category in all classes and later a notification dated 25.01.2007 was issued on the basis of above said policy decisions.

              It is important to mention that the policy decisions was having consonance with professor Krishna Kumar Committee except the classes  as the committee suggested the admission at junior level classes but the Govt. did not agreed due to various reasons including the seats structure

in private schools and it has been notified that admission will be in all classes up to class XIIth. It is not difficult to understand the reason as the document I procured under RTI Act and affidavit filed by directorate in W.P.(c) 8434 in a social jurist PIL categorically mentions it impossible to fix the seats uniform from entry level to exit level. You will appreciate the fact that as per Delhi school education and rules there is not any manner for fixation of seats in each and every class of school and it will create a big administrative problem to monitor increase in seats in classes above class I. A chart annexed with this letter which is procured on the basis of projection of seats in next 14 years taking the enrolment submitted in annual return in the year 2011 as base year shows that 25% at entry point will never fulfill the contractual liability even after 14 yrs or later when the students presently admitted in class pre school will be in class XIIth. It will be clear to you after having a look on chart that if we allot 100% seats at entry class in some of the schools then also contractual liability will not be fulfilled. For illustration please have a look on the annexed projection chart of Ryan International School Rohini where if we presume that all the seats at class I is allotted to EWS then also it will never meet 25% obligation under allotment clause for weaker section mentioned in allotment letter of the school. The annexed chart illustrates that in the Ryan International Rohini there will be only 3.06 % EWS student after 12 year when student admitted in class I in session 2011-12 will reach in class-XII and not a single EWS student will be dropped out. It will be stable after 12 year at 3.06 percent. It is disappointing that if we fix higher percentage even 100% then also maximum possible occupancy from EWS will be 12% after 12 year and then will be stable at 12% even after hundred years from now. It is important to mention that contractual liability is 25% + 5% of the strength. Similar situation will be at sachdeva public school Rohini

where maximum occupancy after 14 yrs. Will be 3.96% as per present notification and with presumption of 100% admission at entry level also it will reach at a maximum of 12% after 14 yrs. In the case of Max Fort school Rohini  if the present situation prevails as per there enrolment shown in annual return then the highest no of EWS enrolment will be in the year 2024-25 when the total EWS occupancy will be 210 against total enrolment of 3168 of the school i.e. 6.62 percent. If we presume that 100% seat at entry level will be allotted to EWS then also total occupancy at saturation point in session 2024-25 will be 840 against total 2939 enrolment in the school i.e. 28.58% which is less then contractual liability. This school is also under obligation of 25% for weaker section and 5% for economically weaker students. You will appreciate the similar situation in charts annexed for Presedium Ashok Vihar and Sachdeva Public School Pitampura which is also showing similar situation where sachdeva Rohini and Pitampura Has 25% obligation but presidium ashok vihar is one of the school having 25% plus addition 5% incorporated in their allotment letters.  In a large no of other schools it will be needed to fix 70- 80 % reservation to meet the overall contractual liability even after 12 or 14 yrs.which is practically impossible. The school has additional liability of 5% which is related with economic constraint and in different clause which I will discuss in a later stage in this letter. I think krishan Kumar committee did not had idea about this diversity but Hon’ble CM had the idea and that was reason that while accepting almost all the recommendation of Prof. Krishna Kumar committee the Hon’ble CM decided EWS admission in all classes and the same was incorporated in the notification dated 25.01.2007 .  It is important to mention here that the concept of 15% was only an interim arrangement limited to such school which submitted the affidavit to comply with notification dated 25.01.2007 and presently none of the school is legally entitled for claim

such exemption as schools inter alia refused to obey the undertaking during session 2011-12 and 2012-13 which technically tantamount to contempt of Hon’ble High Court order dated 30.05.2007 in W.P. (c) 3156 of 2002.

         I think it important to mention about 5% clause and distinguish it from the existing clause discussed in length. I will request please to see the both clauses incorporated in allotment letter. It is clear that if intention was to club this 5% with another 25% then it was proper to write 30% once instead of 5% in beginning and another 25% in the end of contract. The beneficiary for both is also different as the 25% mentions weaker section which can be defined by state in what so ever manner like one defined under RTE Act or another defined under 25^th January notification but the 5% clause mentions economic constraints which is beyond domain of state to interpret in any way other then economic basis. It was the reason that both clauses incorporated at diff. places in the allotment letter. It is also important to mention here that this 5% was never discussed in any of the meeting, report or literature and it came in my knowledge first time when I procured some allotment letter under provisions of RTI applications. It is requested for kind perusal of various court order where the liability has been discussed 20 to 25 percent and never word 30% has been used in any of the order or even in any argument of parties also. In modern school case where sample allotment letter was re-produced by Hon’ble Supreme Court also mentions clause for weaker section in the last part of allotment letter only and the sample allotment letter was from Delhi Public School which had not any obligation under 5% clause. I have earlier written your office and during various discussions you assured to consider it. I believe the present order from the Hon’ble division bench is wide enough to consider this 5% while making policy decision. It is important to mention that this liability

is independent from one meant for weaker section and this is over and above 25% under RTE Also hence this liability is not even overlapped by the provisions of RTE hence this obligation just starts from entry level class and remains in operation until the another liability under allotment letter exists.

Suggestions –

A.   Notification dated 07.01.2011 should be re-drafted special the introduction part where it should be clarified that the notification is for non-minority unaided private schools only and a parallel obligation runs under allotment clause for schools at public land and which will operate immediately after the operation of 7^th January notification in non minority school. In the above said notification entry level class will be replaced by entry level classes which include all the class up to class I. It is requested to ensure the operation of clause 4(b) (amended) should operate for all the classes up to class I. It is also suggested to fix the year instead of last 3 year as the present form makes the violation legal after violating the prevision in three consecutive years. It should be mentioned that minority schools will be covered by another notification.

B.   It is suggested that obligation under allotment letter should extend for all classes after class I in non minority school and the same should be started from entry level class to exit class of the minority schools which are out from the ambit of RTE Act 2009. In the case of schools which starts from class VI like New State Academy Sr. Sec. School and other schools the same regime should apply which applies on minority schools out from the ambit of RTE Act 2009.

C.   Percentage of obligation for weaker section which does not include the 5% clause can be fixed at 20% irrespective of terms of allotment as the above mentioned meeting with CM had representation of Land owing agency and the same has been accepted by Hon’ble High court in W.P.(C) 3156 of 2002 hence it will not create any technical problem. Alternatively the percentage in allotment letter whether 20 or 25 will prevail and for such school where it is discretion of director to fix percentage it can be fixed at least 20% as the same has very strong technical base in the terms of representation from school representatives and the participants of meeting discussed under leadership of CM Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It should be mentioned that this is for weaker section only and 5% condition is not included in this fixation.

D.  The schools should be identified having 5% obligation and it should be notified that the students from EWS category will be eligible for this 5% seats. It should be also clarified that application in 5% category does not forfeits the right to apply in weaker section category and similarly application of Disadvantage group category does not forfeits the right to apply in general category in the school. The method used by Kendirya Vidyalaya can be adopted for this purpose where the students in first round become later eligible under EWS round.

E.    The manner of admission in land allotment clause whether in 20% category or 5% category will be fixed as per RTE ACT 2009 and 7^th January notification up to class VIII where RTE operates and after that the provisions of DSER will be operational. After class I the admission will be on the basis of admission test but there must be provision of appeal against any arbitrary refusal and Education officer or DDE can be authorized for this purpose.

F.   It should be incorporated in notification under allotment clause and provisions of RTE that no student can be expelled for whatever reason without prior permission of an officer not below the rank of DDE as the same is necessary to defeat the intention of undue expulsion as the EWS admission will be up to a fixed percentage of new admission. Alternatively it can be considered that EWS student will replace EWS and General can replace general category but I personally it will be difficult to monitor under limited resource directorate having for monitoring at ground level.

G.  Provision of re-imbursement for students admitted under RTE Act should be extended to admission under allotment clause also as it will encourage the school to admit more then 25% also and EWS students will also feel themselves at par with EWS/DG under provisions of RTE Act 2009. Provision of neighborhood should be continued as it will need further amendment in rule and by extending the neighborhood the liability of state will be transportation also which will create another problem. If the state is ready to provide transportation then it is not a problem otherwise it will be difficult to decide that which is big school or small school otherwise Delhi school education act defines all the school of the same level.

          Therefore it is requested to consider all the discussions and suggestion made while taking any policy decision as directed by Hon’ble High Court in the matter. I personally believe that it will be helpful to protect the provisions of RTE Act 2009 regarding EWS admission from devices of reducing the number of seats at entry level class as well as it will activate the EWS admission in MCD recognized more then 800 schools which are un-utilized as there is

no option for those students under EWS category to get admission under EWS category in DOE recognized schools. I voluntarily assure you to provide all the documentary support and assistance to clarify the above contentions and want to clarify that this suggestion I am making is in personal capacity and there is nothing related with my official position as the counsel for petitioner in the above said writ petition pending with this Hon’ble court. It is also mentioned that I have already raised these issues prior to this order from Hon’ble High court.  Thank you.

                 

With Regards

Khagesh B Jha, Adv.

M- 9350456565    

         

         Copy to

                 

1.   Director Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi with request to consider the suggestion while framing policy for EWS admission under land allotment clause.

2.   Hon’ble Minister Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi with request to consider the suggestion while framing policy for EWS admission under land allotment clause.

3.   Hon’ble Chief Minister Govt. of NCT of Delhi with request to consider the suggestion. While framing policy for EWS admission under land allotment clause.

Annexure

1)   Chart showing projection of enrolments in Ryan International Rohini, Sachdeva Public School Rohini, Max Fort school Rohini, Sachdeva Public School Rohini and presidium school Ashok vihar showing projection from the years 2011-12 to 2024-25 as per present notification and based on enrolment shown in annual return of the school.

2)   A copy of Prof. Yashpal Comitee Report.

3)   Delhi High court orders in W.P. (c) 3156 of 2002 and W.P. (c) 8434 of 2011 in social jurist PIL.

4)   A copy of Division bench-II order dated 24.09.2012 in W.P. (c) 3715 of 2011 titled as Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs BAL Bharti Public School.

5)   A copy of affidavit filed by DOE in W.P. (c) 8434 of 2011 justifying amendment in clause 4(b) of DOE circuler.