Palah Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

what mujib said

Jyothi Basu Is Dead

Unflinching Left firm on nuke deal

Jyoti Basu's Address on the Lok Sabha Elections 2009

Basu expresses shock over poll debacle

Jyoti Basu: The Pragmatist

Dr.BR Ambedkar

Memories of Another day

Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Saturday, March 17, 2012

ARROGANT SCHOOL - Parents move Delhi High Court today on Unaided School forcing them to take TC of their wards

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

C.M. NO.____ OF 2012

 

IN

W.P. (CIVIL) No. 7326/2011

         

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

 

Qasier Javed & Others                                   …… Petitioners

 

VERSUS

 

St. Lawrence  Convent Senior Secondary

School & Others                                       …… Respondents

 

 

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR DIRECTIONS

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

 

1.     The grievance of the petitioners in the present application is that the respondent-school by their letters dated 29.02.2012 and 09.03.2012 (Annexures A-3 & A-4) to the parents-petitioners have clearly refused to comply with the orders dated 12.12.2011 and 21.12.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above writ petition in regard to payment of fee on account of Smart Classes and moreover, despite DOE order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure A-1) deciding payment of Rs.150/- per month only on account of Smart Class Fee, the respondent-school has been insisting for payment of Rs.400/- per month. Moreover, the respondent-school by their above mentioned letters dared to ask the parents- petitioners to pay Rs.5000/- each on account of litigation cost. Furthermore, the respondent-school has not only threatened the parents-petitioners to not to allow their wards to continue in the school from the academic year 2012-13 through by their above said letters but has in fact materialized their said threat on 15.03.2012 when the result of the students of Classes II & III declared and the officials of the respondent-school refused to give fee bills and books to parents-petitioners and insisted upon to take transfer certificates. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent-school has been considering itself above law and is bent upon harassing parents and students who have filed the above writ petition challenging arbitrary and illegal actions of the respondents-schools in recovering unjustified and exorbitant fees from them on one pretext or the other.

 

2.       The petitioners have filed the above writ petition challenging the impugned action on the part of the respondent/school in arbitrarily and without justification increasing tuition fees and other charges in the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-12 and the Respondent/DOE which has not only power but also duty bound to check commercialization of education under Delhi School Education Act, 1973 has failed to take any action against the respondent/school.  It is submitted that the respondent/school has increased tuition fees by 12% in the academic year 2010-11 and by 40% in the academic year 2011-12.  It was also highlighted in the petition that the respondent/school  has subjected the hapless parents on account of impermissible heads like property tax, SMS charges, Development Charges and Maintenance Charges, etc.

 

3.       The petitioners submit that during the pendency of the above writ petition, the respondent/school has again arbitrarily and illegally increased tuition fees by Rs.400/- per month per student in Class I to Class XI  in the name of Smart Class in quarterly  fee slip of October, 2010 to December, 2011 and those who have refused to pay the said amount of Rs.1200/- (quarterly) have not only been segregated in the class from 17.10.2011 and onwards but have also been subjected to all kinds of humiliation  by the respondent/school.   The petitioners submit that challenging the aforesaid arbitrary and illegal increased tuition fee by Rs.400/- per month per student in Class I to Class XI in the name of Smart Classes, they filed CM No.19578/2011 in this Hon'ble Court in the above writ petition  seeking following reliefs:-

 

"(a)   direct the respondent/school to forthwith stop discriminating against those students who have not made payment of Rs.400/- per month in the name of Smart Class and allow them  to attend classes along with those students who have made payment for smart classes and revert back to old pattern which was in practice before 17.10.2011;

 

(b)     prohibit the respondent/school from demanding fees on account of smart classes without first getting permission from the Directorate of Education, as required under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973; and

 

(c)     direct the Director of Education, Govt. of  NCT of  Delhi to inquire into the allegation of humiliation, harassment and insult subjected to the students who did not make payment on account of Smart Class by the authorities of the respondent/school as mentioned in the complaints dated 17.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 and to take appropriate action against the erring authorities of the respondent/school in accordance with law."

 

4.       The petitioners submit that the said CM No.19578/2011 came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 12.12.2011 and the Hon'ble Judge was pleased to pass the following Orders:-

 

          "CM 19578/2011 (by the petitioners for directions)
  

1.       This application is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for  directions to respondents No.1 and 2/School not to discriminate against    the students, who have not paid Rs.400/- each, levied on a monthly basis by
the School for the use of Digital Smart Class Technology and to allow   them to attend the classes along with the other students who have paid   the said fee. It is further prayed that respondents No.1 and 2/School be
prohibited from demanding the aforesaid fee for the purpose of use of Smart Class Technology, without obtaining necessary permission from respondent No.3/Directorate   of Education, as required under Section 17(3) of the Delhi School   Education Act, 1993.

 

2.       Counsel for the petitioners states that the parents of the students studying in respondents No.1 and 2/School, who have not paid the aforesaid fee, are ready and willing to deposit the fee in respect of use of Smart Class Technology, if the same is found to be just and reasonable by respondent No.3/DOE.

 

3.       Counsel for the petitioners states that though advance copy of this application was sought to be served on the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/School, he refused to accept a copy thereof. As a result, the same had to be despatched directly to the respondents No.1 and 2/School. Appearance is, however, entered by the counsels for respondent No.3/DOE and respondent No.4/CAG.

 

4.       Having regard to the fact that the grievance, subject matter of the present application, was duly set out in a representation dated 24.10.2011 addressed on behalf of the petitioners to the respondent No.3/DOE, in the first instance, respondent No.3/ DOE is directed to immediately examine the said representation and call upon respondents No.1 and 2/School to explain their stand, whereafter appropriate orders shall be passed by respondent No.3/DOE under    written intimation to the addressee of the aforesaid representation as  also to respondents No.1 and 2/School, within two weeks from the date of granting a hearing to respondents No.1 and 2/School. The aforesaid decision shall be placed on record before the next date of hearing.

  

5.       Subject to further orders, respondents No.1 and 2/School are   restrained from acting on the impugned circular/ notice enclosed as Annexure E to this application, whereunder the School has decided to
separate students who have paid the additional fee of Rs.400/- per month   from those who have not done so
.


DASTI to the counsels for the parties under the signatures of the   Court Master.


 
 
Sd/-

  HIMA KOHLI, J"

 

 

 

5.       The petitioners submit that thereafter, the respondent/school filed CM No.20146/2011 seeking vacation of the Order dated 12.12.2011.  It is submitted that the said CM No.20146/2011 came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 21.12.2011  and the Hon'ble Judge was pleased to pass the following orders:-

 

"CM 20146/2011 (by respondents No.1 and 2/School for vacation of the order   dated 12.12.2011)


  
Issue notice.


  
Counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners accepts notice and seeks time to file a reply. Reply be filed within two weeks with a copy to the counsel for the applicants/respondents No.1 and 2, who may file a rejoinder, if necessary, before the next date of hearing.
  
It is submitted by the counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/School that while the School shall abide by the interim order dated 12.12.2011 by not taking any coercive measure/s against the wards of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned circular/notice (Annexure-E) enclosed with CM 19578/2011, the petitioners be directed to give undertakings in terms of
the statement made on their behalf as recorded in para 2 of the order dated 12.12.2011.


Counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners states that the
petitioners have no objection to filing undertakings that they would be ready and willing to deposit the fee with the School in respect of use of Smart Class Technology, if the same is found to be just and reasonable by respondent No.3/DOE. Needful shall be done within two weeks with copies to the other side.

   
List on the date fixed, i.e., on 29th February, 2012.   


In view of the apprehension expressed by the counsel for
respondents No.1 and 2/School that staying of the impugned
circular/notice (Annexure E) may not be interpreted to mean that the School is restrained from holding classes by using the Smart Class Technology, it is clarified that the import of the interim order dated 12.12.2011 is not to restrain the respondents No.1 and 2/School from
  holding such classes but is only to restrain the School from taking any coercive measures against such of the students, who have not paid additional fee for attending such classes.


  
DASTI to the parties.

  Sd/-
HIMA KOHLI, J"
  

 

6.       The petitioners submit that in terms of the aforesaid Order dated December 21, 2011, the petitioners have submitted as many as 30 Undertakings in regard to 30 students including 9 students of the petitioner 1 to 6 in this Hon'ble Court that they would be ready and willing to pay the fees to the school in respect of the use of Smart Class Technology, if the same is found to be just and reasonable by the Respondent No.3/DOE.  It is respectfully submitted that despite the aforesaid 30 Undertakings have been filed by the petitioners in this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent/School allowed only 9 students of the petitioner 1 to 6 to take the Smart Class and the rest were denied. It is respectfully submitted that despite orders dated 12.12.2011 & 21.12.2011 of the this Hon'ble Court, the respondent school continue to segregate the students till date in utter disobedience of the said Orders.

 

7.       The petitioners submit that in compliance of the aforesaid Order dated 12.12.2011 of this Hon'ble Court, the Director of Education vide Orders dated 25.1.2012 directed the respondent/school to not to charge beyond Rs.150/- per child per month for holding Smart Classes provided by M/s. Educomp.  It was also directed that the students of EWS Category shall not be refrained from availing "Smart Classes" facility, for which no money shall be charged from them.  The said Order dated 25.1.2012 is being reproduced as under:-

 

"In compliance of the order dated 12/12/2011 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) 7326/2011 and in the matter of fee charged from the students for "Smart Classes @ Rs.400/- per student per month by your school, you are hereby directed not to charge beyond Rs.150/- per student / month for holding "Smart Classes" provided by the M/s.EDUCOMP.  Further, students of EWS category shall not be refrain from availing "Smart Classes" facility, for which no money shall be charged from them.

         

          This issue with the prior approval of competent authority.

Sd/-

RENU SHARMA

DDE (EAST)"

A true copy of the said order dated 25.01.2012 of the DOE is enclosed here to as Annexure A-1.

 

 

8.       The petitioners submit that after the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure A-1), the petitioners/parents of as many as 24 students have sent cheques at the rate of Rs.150/- per month towards fee of Smart Classes to the respondent/school.  However, all these cheques were received back by the petitioners-parents with covering letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.2012 of the respondent/school which in the respectful submission of the petitioners is highly contemptuous in nature.  By the said letters, the respondent/school has thrown to air all the Orders having been passed by this Hon'ble Court and also the Order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Directorate of Education, pursuant to the directions having been issued by this Hon'ble Court on 12.12.2011.  A sample of the said letter dated 09.03.2012 is reproduced as under:-

 

"St. Lawrence Convent

Geeta Colony, Facility Centrte,

Delhi-110031

09.03.2012

 

By Speed Post

          Braham Prakash Gupta

Father of Shubham Gupta

          Adm. No.2322   Class – X C

 

Sub: Smart Class opted by you in Jan. 2012, Payment of smart class charges

 

          Dear Parent,

With reference to your option for providing Smart-Class to your ward form the month of Jan.2012 in response to the order of Hon'ble High Court.  In this connection we have to inform you that Rs.150.—P.M. charges as fixed by Directorate of Education on 25.0p1.2012 are not applicable on us and the same are illegal and bad in Law which is already challenged in the Hon'ble High Court.    

 

The Hon'ble High Court has already made you the party on the basis of our petition whereas we left you from making a party of our case and we filed the case against Directorate of Education only.  Please note that Directorate of Education has no right to fix fees and other charges in respect of any private-unaided schools, hence the order quoted by you is not binding on us, the detail of the powers of the DOE has been mentioned in our writ petition a copy of which is already with you and with your Advocate.

 

 

Please see the point No.22 of the circularNo.F.DE,/15(56)/Act/2009/778 dt. 11.02.2009 in which it is clearly mentioned that "Earmarked levies shall be charged form the user students only.  Earmarked levies for the services rendered shall be charged in respect of facilities involving expenditure beyond the expenditure on earmarked levies already being charged for the purpose.  They will be calculated and collected on "no profit no loss" basis and spent only for the purpose for which they are being charged.  All transactions relating to the earmarked levies shall be an integral part of the school account?"

 

The cost of "Smart Classes" is Rs.150/- App. Per student payable to M/s. Educomp and around Rs.280/- per student is for other facilities, but the total charges which school is charging is Rs.400/- per month per student as per the decision taken by the management of school and PTA-St. Lawrence Convent duly represented by school management, teachers and parents representatives.  The smart classes are optional and charges are to be paid from October, 2011 onwards @ Rs.400.00 P.M. with late fine of Rs.20.00 per day after last date of payment of fees.  Since you opted smart classes for your ward, please pay charges as mentioned in fees bill issued in the last week of December, 2011 for the period January 2012 to march, 2012 with applicable late fine charges.

 

 

In case you wish to continue your ward in our school, please avoid litigation on small points because we will recover the entire cost of litigation from the concerned parents only, shortly we are raising a bill of the cost of litigation already incurred by the school which will be payable by litigant parents like you.  By ready to pay a demand of Rs.5000/- approximately (exact cost is under calculation) towards litigation cost for the session 2011-12 till date only.  In case of failure to pay any demand raised by the school for the session 2011-12, your ward will not be allowed to attend school from the next session.

 

          Thanking you,

 

          Yours faithfully,

 

          Sd/-                                                             Encl : Your cheque

Mrs. Neeta Kohli

Vice Principal &

Discipline Incharge"

 

 

 

True copy of a list of 24 students paid smart class charges as per DOE order is enclosed hereto as Annexure A-2.  True copies of the said letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.2012 are enclosed herewith asAnnexure A-3 & A-4 respectively.

 

9.       The petitioners submit that by the said letters dated 29.02.2012 &09.03.2012, the respondent/school through its Vice Principal and Discipline Incharge Mrs. Neeta Kohli has informed the petitioners-parents that the charges of Rs.150.00 as fixed by the Directorate of Education on 25.01.2012 are not applicable to the respondent/school and the same are illegal and bad in law which is also challenged in the Hon'ble High Court.  It was also stated that the Directorate of Education has no right to fix the fees and other charges of any private unaided schools, hence the order quoted by the parents is not binding on the respondent/school.  It was further stated that since the parents have opted Smart Classes for their wards, they were asked to pay the charges as mentioned in the fees bill (i.e. Rs.400/- per month on account of Smart Classes) issued in the last week of December, 2011 for the period January 2012 to March, 2012 with applicable late fine charges.  The matter did not end there.   The respondent/school has further demanded Rs.5, 000/- approx. (exact cost is under calculation) towards litigation cost for the session 2011-12 till date only.  The respondent/school has further more threatened that in case of failure to pay any demand raised by the respondent/school for the session 2011-12, their wards would not be allowed to attend school from the next session.

 

10.     The petitioners respectfully submit that the demands for payment of Rs.400/- per month on account of Smart Classes and Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation cost for the session 2011-12 and further contemplated action of not allowing their wards to attend the school from the next session are not only illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory but also in clear dis-respect and disobedience of the Orders dated 12.12.,2011 and 21.12.2011 of this Hon'ble Court and tantamount to contempt of this Hon'ble Court.  In respectful submission of the petitioners, it is submitted that the contents of the aforesaid letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.,2012 of the respondent/school clearly reveals that the respondent/school considers themselves above the law and have least regard for the Orders and directions having been passed by this Hon'ble Court.  It is submitted the conduct of the respondent-school as stated above is such that the Government of Delhi should consider of taking over of the respondent-school under Section 20 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

11.   The petitioners submit that on 15.03.2012, the respondent-schools declared results of students of Classes II & III. It is submitted that the petitioner-parents of the students namely, Mehak Kapoo (promoted to Class IV), Gunika Gar (promoted to Class IV) & Shekh Mehtaboor Rehman (Promoted to Class III) were refused fee bills and books without any reason which has caused great humiliation and mental agony to both the parents and these students. Moreover, Ms. Kumud Duggal (Incharge) and Ms. Nita Kohli (Vice-Principal) told the parents that this action was taken against those parents who have filed case in the Hon'ble High Court. Furthermore, these school officials insisted the parents of the aforementioned students that have to take the Transfer Certificates as these students would not be allowed to study in the respondent-school from the academic year 2012-13. It is submitted that the petitioner N0. 7-Association wrote a protest letter dated 15.03.2012 to the respondent school and a copy thereof to the Deputy Director of Education, East Delhi requesting the respondent-school to provide fee bills and books immediately to these students and stop all such kind of harassment to these hapless parents. It is submitted that no action has so far been taken by the DOE on the said protest letter of the parents-association.

        A true copy of the said protest letter dated 15.03.2012 of the petitioner No. 7-Association is enclosed hereto as Annexure A-5.

 

PRAYER

 

          In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :-

 

(a)      direct the respondent/school not to insist on payment of Rs.400.00 per month on account of Smart Classes and the parents may not be insisted upon to pay beyond Rs.150.00 per month on account of Smart Classes and that too from the month the students are allowed to attend the smart classes;

 

(b)     restrain the respondent/school to charge Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation cost for the session 2011-12 from the parents as contemplated in the letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.2012 (Annexure A-3 & A-4) of the respondent/school;

 

(c)     direct the respondent/school to withdraw its letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.2012 (Annexure A-3 & A-4);

 

(d)     restrain the respondent/school from disallowing the students to attend the school from the next session, as threatened in the letters dated 29.02.2012 & 09.03.2012 of the respondent/school (Annexure A-3 & A-4);

(e)     direct the respondent-school to forthwith provide fee bills and books to petitioners-parents of the students namely Mehak Kapoor (promoted to Class IV), Gunika Garg (promoted to Class IV) and Shekh Mehtaboor Rehaman and to stop all such type of harassments to the hapless parents and students; and

 

(e)      pass any such further order or direction as may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent/school.

 

 

 

 

(Ashok Agarwal & Kusum Sharma)

Advocates for the Petitioners

483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003

Ph: 23384000, Mob-9811101923

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 17.03.2012

No comments:

Post a Comment