IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. NO.------- OF 2011
IN
W.P. (CIVIL) No. 3156/2002
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Social Jurist &nbs p; …… Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. …… Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF :
St. Lawrence Convent Senior Secondary School
Through Principal ,
Geeta Colony, Facility Centre,
Delhi-110031 …..…… Respondent
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR DIRECTIONS
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioner by the present application is highlighting the fact that St. Lawrence Convent Senior Secondary School, Geeta Colony, Facility Centre, Delhi-110031, hereinafter referred as ‘Respondent/School’, has resorted to discriminatory treatment to as many as 31 Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) students as they are not allowed to sit with other students in the classes from 17.10.2011 and have been segregated and isolated merely because of the fact that they were unable to pay the Smart Class Fee of Rs.400/- per month to the school. It is submitted that the demand of the respondent/school for payment of Rs.400/- per month on account of Smart Classes is not only illegal but also in violation of several orders including interim order dated 30.05.2007, passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above PIL.
2. The petitioner submits that the above stated 31 EWS students were admitted in the respondent/school, in terms of the Orders of this Hon’ble Court having been passed in the above PIL and they are presently studying in Classes I to V. The details of some of these students are given in a chart enclosed herewith as Annexure –A.
3. The petitioner submits that all these 31 EWS students are legally entitled to totally free education and the respondent/school is not entitled to ask for any payment, on any account, from these students. It is also submitted that the respondent/school is situated at the public land having been allotted to it at concessional rates and in terms of the allotment letter read with the Government Order of 2007, the respondent/school is obliged to provide admission to the extent of 20% to the children belonging to economically weaker sections and grant them free-ship.
4. The petitioner submits that while these students were studying in the respondent/school in different classes, the respondent/ school demanded a sum of Rs.1200/- (@ Rs.400/- per month for 3 months) on account of Smart Classes from all the students including these 31 EWS students in the month of October, 2011 and those who have refused to pay the said amount of Rs.1200/- on account of Smart Classes have not only been segregated in the classes but have also been subjected to all kinds of humiliation by the school authorities.
5. The pe titioner respectfully submits that from 17.10.2011, the respondent/school has divided and separated all students as ‘Educomp’ and ‘Non - Educomp’ Students. It is submitted that all these 31 EWS students have also been segregated and humiliated by the respondent/school because they were unable to pay the said illegally demanded fees.
6. The petitioner respectfully submits that these unwarranted and uncalled for acts on the part of the respondent/school has caused tremendous harassment to the EWS students and also their hapless parents. It is submitted that the said action on the part of the respondent sc hool has caused these students to suffer severe mental harm, insult and depression.
7. The petitioner submits that the students and parents protested under the banner of All India Parents Association outside the premises of Director of Education on 24.10.2011 as the Education Department was failing in its’ duties to take action against the respondent/school on the complaints of the parents in regard to arbitrary, unjust and illegal demand of fees on account of Smart Classes and those who were not depositing the same, their children were being harassed, humiliated, segregated and insulted by the school staff. It is submitted th at a representation was also handed over to the Director of Education. Besides this, parents and students met Shri Diwan Chand, Director of Education and he assured the parents and the students that he would take action in three days but no action has been taken till date.
A copy of the representation dated 24.10.2011 is enclosed hereto as Annexure B.
8. The petitioner respectfully submits that the respondent/school is not justified in segregating all these EWS S tudents on the ground that they have not paid Rs.400/- per month on account of Smart Classes. It is respectfully submitted that such a demand on the part of the respondent/school is totally arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and in violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court having been passed in the above PIL. In any case, the respondent/school is not entitled to segregate these students on the basis of facilities and further, they are not entitled to humiliate, harass and insult (psychological violence) the students.
9. The petitioner respectfully submits that the aforesaid a ction on the part of the respondent/school tantamount to commercialization of education. It is all greed on the part of the respondent/school which has resulted in harassment of the hapless parents/students. Apart from that the same is in clear violation of Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment to the child. Moreover, the same amounts to cruelty to children and attract punishment under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to a Judgment of U.S. Supreme Court in case of Brown vs. Board of Education 347 US 283 (1954) where it has been held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” thus, violates the doctrine of equality. The said judgment of the USSC has been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment in case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others (2011) 8 SCC 737.
10. The petitioner invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of Section 8 ( c ) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which mandates the respondent – government to “ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and prevented from pursuing and completing elementary education on any ground”.
11. The petitioner also invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of Clause 3(2) of the Delhi School Education(Free seats for Students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections) Order, 2006 which provides, “No separate or exclusive class or shift shall be arranged for imparting education to the students admitted against free seats mentioned in sub-paragraph(1)”.
12. The petitioner further invites attention of this Hon’ble Court to the provisions of Rule 10 (2) of Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 notified vide Notification dated 23.11.2011 that provides, “The school referred to in clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2 shall ensure that children admitted in accordance with clause © of sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall not be discriminated from the rest of the children in any manner pertaining to entitlements and facilities such as text books, uniforms, library and information and communication technology facilities, extra-curricular activities and sports”.
10. The petitioner submits that the parents have brought these facts vide their representations dated 17.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 but no action has been taken by the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, till date.
True copies of the said representations are enclosed hereto as Annexures C and D respectively.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) re strain the respondent/school from segregating these 31 EWS students from other students and the respondent/school may be directed to restore the classes’ status as prevalent prior to 17.10.2011;
(b) direct the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to take appropriate action against the erring officials of the respondent/school in accordance with law; and
(c) pass any such further order/direction as this Hon’ble may in the circumstances of the present case think appropriate in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
(Ashok Agarwal & Khagesh B. Jha)< /strong>
Advocates for the Petitioner
483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Ph: 23384000, Mob-9811101923
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 26.11.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment